What constitutes "abstract thinking"?

[derEikopf]

I've been having trouble with this one...looked through all kinds of forums, literature, articles, thought about it for hours on end, and still I cannot come up with an answer.

How are abstract thoughts possible? How can they exist apart from reality? Nothing can exist that does not follow the laws of reality, but thoughts don't have to...why? What constitutes "thought"? Since thoughts exist, they must have some sort of physical identity...but if they did, then they would be subject to reality and volition would be eliminated.

I'm probably missing a very obvious premise...so please help!

[softwareNerd]

This earlier thread (link) may have some of what you are looking for.

[Hal]

Are you asking a neuroscientific/psychological question ("what features of the human brain and cognitive systems give rise to, and are involved in, abstract thinking?"), or a philosophical question? Assuming the latter, what kind of answer are you looking for?

What do you mean by thoughts "existing apart from reality"? If a thought exists as a process in your brain then it is part of physical reality no matter what its content is. Consider a painting of a unicorn - there is nothing problematic about the existence of the painting, taken as a physical object (a canvas covered with brush strokes), even though that which is represented in the painting does not exist.

Edited August 18, 2005 by Hal

[LifeSimpliciter]

I think this is a very tricky and very important question to answer, and to begin with I'm going to admit my ignorance. I have no idea how abstract thought is possible, but one thing we should recognize is that abstract thought is. That much is irrefutable. In fact, my strongest inclination is to believe that thought is as axiomatic as basic perception.

But I think we should invite more argument in the matter by explaining the question better. The question is similar to one of Plato's questions, I believe brought up in the Phaedo. It is the sum of the questions, what is a concept, does it exist, and how does it exist? It clearly isn't just an organization of matter--Saul Kripke defeated this idea without leaving it much life at all. (See "Naming and Identity" or ask me for a succinct explanation.). A concept may be a result of a particular organization of matter, but it cannot be the matter itself. The matter is a derived concept, since it is no axiom that atoms exist. I'm running roughshod over the idea that the matter is the concept, since I hope it doesn't warrant much discussion.

Anyway, physical ontology seems to be more primitive than concepts, since concepts organize matter. The concept of a horse categorizes and denotes all the matter that makes up horses--and, perhaps, other things such as horsiness and the haecceity of horses if one believes in such things. That is, concepts become empty without the matter about which it "speaks". So the punch-line is, how does this seemingly ephemeral entity obtain? The more I think about it, the more I feel like a dog chasing its tale, using concepts to question how concepts exist. But it may not be as contradictory as it seems, like when we use a very complicated and counter-intuitive system of thought to make language and formal systems talk about themselves, which is the foundation of ground-breaking work by Kurt Godel.

It's somewhat like asking, how do we have consciousness? Consciousness seems to be the thing we are most directly aware of, but it also seems that existence is primary. If that makes consciousness secondary, in what way is it secondary? If all that exists physically is matter and energy, or just energy, where does this supervening thing, a concept, come from?

Edited August 21, 2005 by LifeSimpliciter

[Felix]

Your thoughts are the workings of your brain. Chemical and electrical impulses between neurons. How this 'really works' is yet to be found out. But thoughts don't exist without a brain. Thoughts don't even exist without a body. If thoughts exist, they must have a basis in reality, and that is: material reality.

There is a wonderful book that I recommend. It's called Where Mathematics comes from and it shows how many of our highest concepts can only be filled with sense because we have the bodies we have. There is no mind-body dichotomy. It's utter nonsense.

[LifeSimpliciter]

Your thoughts are the workings of your brain. Chemical and electrical impulses between neurons.

This is precisely what Kripke demonstrated cannot be the case, unless you are going to assert that the phrase "your thoughts" and the phrase "some particular organization of chemical and electrical impulses" denote the exact same thing. Yet it seems apparent that "your thoughts" denote that visceral thing that your consciousness experiences, and not the matter that we suspect is its mainspring. I get the sense that I am going to have to give a fully elaborated refutation of this idea.

Thoughts don't even exist without a body.

Not to be too cynical, but have you tested this theory or do you believe it is true by dint of what you mean (i.e. a tautology)?

While I believe you are right, I have not seen proof of it and the whole question asks for solid evidence. We all know what seems intuitively true, but what is at stake is the verification of this intuition and a precise delineation of the relationship between mind and body.

[derEikopf]

Perhaps the reason it is not answerable is because it is an axiom.

It's a hard question to ask...I don't know if I can completely explain what my dilemma is.

I suppose it's similar to computers. You can program a computer to say "Red is blue". While this is obviously not true, the computer doesn't know any better, and it's not breaking any laws by saying it. But the computer can't conceptualize and reason that red is in fact not blue. That conceptualization, the recognition that red is not blue, the actual meaning of the words, is only possible through me. Is that a function of the axiom of consciousness? If so, does that mean we will never unlock the secrets of the brain and how it works?

[Proverb]

Behold! The Primacy of Consciousness and the implications of free will. As I understand it, consciousness is a primary, an irreducable.

[softwareNerd]

Perhaps the reason it is not answerable is because it is an axiom.

When you say "it is an axiom", what is "it"? Do you mean "abstract thoughts" or something else?

What exactly do you mean by "abstract" thoughts? Or, as Hal asked:

What do you mean by thoughts "existing apart from reality"?

I think the discussion will be aided if you explain what type of referents you are speaking of when you say "abstract thoughts"?

[source]

While I believe you are right, I have not seen proof of it and the whole question asks for solid evidence.

Actually, the burden of proof is on the one claiming that thought can exist without a body. He's the one who's seen it! (or has he?)

[Volens]

I've been having trouble with this one...looked through all kinds of forums, literature, articles, thought about it for hours on end, and still I cannot come up with an answer.

How are abstract thoughts possible?  How can they exist apart from reality?  Nothing can exist that does not follow the laws of reality, but thoughts don't have to...why?  What constitutes "thought"?  Since thoughts exist, they must have some sort of physical identity...but if they did, then they would be subject to reality and volition would be eliminated.

I'm probably missing a very obvious premise...so please help!

You really believe that thoughts don't have to follow the laws of reality? How? When you reach a problem like this, the first thing is to concretize it. What thought have you ever had that did not follow the laws of existence and identity?

Perhaps you mean that a man can imagine a block floating in mid-air with no support, but that this is not possible in reality. You need to remember that there is a distinction between what is in your mind, and what is in reality. This distinction is grasped by each baby the day he wants his mother and his mother does not magically appear. What is in your mind is the imagination of a block floating in mid-air, what is in reality is something else. This imagination in your mind is subject to a different set of laws from the block. Imagination involves the combination of material derived originally from the senses.

Without the neccessary materials (previous awareness of something similar to a block, something similar to floating), there can be no imagination. Also, imagination requires either a conscious focusing on the materials, or a subconscious process that is performed automatically based on previous, related, conscious processes. These are both instances of the law of identity.

So, you were missing a very obvious distinction indeed, the distinction between existence and consciousness.

As for volition being an exemption from the law of identity, see Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand", chapter 2. In the meantime, why don't you "will" yourself into turning into an orange, or tell the person you love the most that you can't see them any more because for all you know, you might be "willed" to stab them to death tomorrow.

[derEikopf]

When you say "it is an axiom", what is "it"? Do you mean "abstract thoughts" or something else?

What exactly do you mean by "abstract" thoughts? Or, as Hal asked:

"It" refers to our means of thought. Without "it", we would not be able to conceptualize anything, much less "it", so I suppose it is an axiom of our existence.

And by abstract thoughts, I mean all of our thoughts. They are abstract because they are seperate from reality and rationality; the contents of our thoughts do not have to conform with reality. That is what brought me to the conclusion of the means of thought, perhaps consciousness (depending on your definition), as an axiom. But if that is so, does that mean we will never be able to understand how our brain works?

So, you were missing a very obvious distinction indeed, the distinction between existence and consciousness.

I understand that existence has primacy over consciousness. That is not the topic, however. Consciousness is a product of the brain...if consciousness is an axiom, does that mean we will never understand the brain? Does this necessitate a limit to science and to our knowledge of reality? But these questions are not the main topic...I'm having a very hard time verbalizing myself...it requires a very complicated thought process to conceptualize...I'll think about it some more and get back to you.

As for volition being an exemption from the law of identity, see Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand", chapter 2. In the meantime, why don't you "will" yourself into turning into an orange, or tell the person you love the most that you can't see them any more because for all you know, you might be "willed" to stab them to death tomorrow.

I have read OPAR, along with most of Rand's and Piekoff's publications. You're making yourself look like a fool in assuming that I know nothing of Objectivism. Do not assume that I do not believe in Objectivism because I question it.

(Edited the quotes to add names, to make clear that two different members were being quoted - sNerd)

Edited August 28, 2005 by softwareNerd

[LifeSimpliciter]

“If so, does that mean we will never unlock the secrets of the brain and how it works?”

Perhaps, perhaps not. If, indeed, consciousness is uniquely in humans that cannot be scientifically reproduced, then it seems like something mystical and I have to reject that out of hand.

If, on the other hand, consciousness is not a result of physical matter but is still an objective existent (say, it is a second and distinct form of existence that interacts with physical matter), then we should still be able to study it. I have always rejected the notion that there is anything we can even talk about that is immune to scientific research. If there is any way that a particular thing interacts with us so that we know about it, there must be a way to analyze it.

“The Primacy of Consciousness and the implications of free will. As I understand it, consciousness is a primary, an irreducable.”

I believe you are confusing the Primacy of Consciousness with the axiom that we are conscious. The Primacy of Consciousness is the idea that Consciousness is primary and, as a corollary, existence is secondary--that is, a result of consciousness. This is to say, consciousness dictates reality. That consciousness is an axiom is the idea that it is a primary, irreducible truth.

“Actually, the burden of proof is on the one claiming that thought can exist without a body. He's the one who's seen it! (or has he?)”

Actually, the burden of proof is on anybody who stakes a claim. That includes the person who asserts that consciousness is a result of the physical body.

“Consciousness is a product of the brain”

Hopefully.

[softwareNerd]

... by abstract thoughts, I mean all of our thoughts. They are abstract because they are seperate from reality and rationality; the contents of our thoughts do not have to conform with reality.

Are you suggesting that thoughts might exist even after one lops off a person's brain? I assume not.

Thoughts (like senses) must have a physical manifestation. From my layman's knowledge, I assume that certain drugs -- like anti-depressants -- are effective because they change some aspect of the phyical reality... some physical aspect inside the brain which is required for a particular thought. Such drugs are to thoughts (a.k.a. "the mind") what a pain-killer is to the senses.

(This might sound like an invitation to determinism, but it is not.)

[Felix]

Yet it seems apparent that "your thoughts" denote that visceral thing that your consciousness experiences, and not the matter that we suspect is its mainspring.  I get the sense that I am going to have to give a fully elaborated refutation of this idea.

I understand your problem and I have been thinking a lot about it myself.

You have your body on the one hand and your mind on the other hand. You have a brain and you can measure how the pulses flow through it, you can measure voltages and even do brain surgery. And then you have the experience of sight and sound. We receive sound waves and photons, but we don't receive vision and sound. That's your problem, right? There seems to be a gap.

But for the problem of sound, for example it has been found out that the human brain has some sort of a Fast Fourier Transformation algorithm implemented in it to differtiate different people in a conversation which has been shown by brain measurements and analysis.

So there is a correlation between them. The problem is how do you take the step from brain to experience. This is something I have not found out yet myself, but I'm trying as hell.

But I think the problem is on your side. Prove to me how there can be conciousness without any sensory means of measurement. You have to be concious of something. Some real world must be outside of your mind. Otherwise you would live in a world that was solely created by your mind, nothing but a big illusion that you can change at will like the matrix. Obviously you can't.

I hope that helps.

[donnywithana]

Abstract thought still must be done in terms of concretes. For example, imagine sonar, something seemingly abstract to humans. A sound is emitted from your body that bounces off an object and informs you of its location and nature. Try to actually invision what this would "look" like. It's impossible, except in terms of the senses we do have. You might imagine being able to "see" the entity your sonar detected, but this is a falsification, as sonar involves no light. The truth would be that you could "hear" where an object was. In order to think abstractly, you have to ground your thought in your own perceptive reality.

Now imagine "Nothing." This concepts defies the nature of how your brain works, and you must approximate it based on the way your brain does work. One might think of "nothing" as a void, but a void consists of space, thus making it something. Come on, NOTHING! Like, if the universe started from one point, it must be finite in size. That means that outside of the bounds of the universe there must exist NOTHING. Can you imagine it? How about this: According to the Second "Law" of Thermodynamics, the universe can not be eternal, because it would be uniform in temperature. That means it has to have begun, because we think we know that matter can not just spontaneously appear, which means there could be no time before the beginning of the universe! So that means before the Big Bang, there was NOTHING. Does this mean that "nothing" can not exist? Possibly, but as this is a discussion of abstract thought, I thought it appropriate to bring in a true abstraction.

[RSalar]

How are abstract thoughts possible? How can they exist apart from reality? Nothing can exist that does not follow the laws of reality, but thoughts don't have to...why? What constitutes "thought"? Since thoughts exist, they must have some sort of physical identity...but if they did, then they would be subject to reality and volition would be eliminated.

It is possible for you to be conscious of something that does not exist in the physical world. (I know you want to know how but wait...) Recall some place that you have visited--make a mental picture of it. That picture exists in your mind but it does not have physical properties. Dreams, memories, mental pictures, ideas, thoughts, etc. do not exist outside of the mind--they exist only in the mind and have no physical properties. This is possible in the same way that things can exist in the real world. In other words I could ask you, "How is it possible that matter exists?" It just does!

Consciousness is a primary irreducible fact in the same way that existence is a primary irreducible fact.

It's difficult to understand how it is possible to be aware of something that has no physical properties, but it is very important to make the proper distinction between existence and consciousness because hypostatization is a common roadblock to understanding abstract concepts.

For example, many people think that "rights" exist in nature. When they think they "have" rights they think that somehow rights exist out there in the real world. But in actuality the concept "rights" is a man-made idea--no one actually has them in the literal sense (like having a house, a car, or a boat, etc.).

If you are interested in learning more about this "problem of universals" I would recommend visiting the Ayn Rand Bookstore and buying: "Two False Theories of Concepts" by Gary Hull. http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/