Concept-formation

[2046]

So let’s see if I can put this all together now and understanding differentiation and integration. In order to form a concept, we do this in this order:

1. Observe things/particulars in the world. These are entities.

2. Observe similarities between some of them and differences between the similar things and everything else.

3. Isolate this group of particulars mentally.

4. Integrate the isolated similar particulars into a class.

5. Designate the class with a word that serves as a perceptual-symbol to retain it in your mind as the mental equivalent of a particular.

(1) involves differentiation in that the differences makes it possible to be aware of something separately. Differing sensory signals allow you to separate something from its background, to identify entities. This makes it possible to isolate something, i.e. to selectively focus on something and consider it apart from everything else. (2) involves differentiation in that the differences makes it possible to see similarities because to notice similarities, you have to notices differences in other things. You need 2 or more similar things and at least 1 thing that’s different. In order to see the similarities between 2 things, you have to be able to compare it to something that has a big difference. You are basically differentiating the similar things from other non-similar things. (3) involves differentiation in that observing the differences makes it possible to isolate something. Once you notice the similarities, you isolate the similar things together as a group.

(4) involves integration in mentally associating the group as a class, omitting the particular quantity of the similar characteristic(s), but retaining that it exists in some form, thus unit-perspective is achieved. (5) uses language to condense the referents into a cognitive symbol, thus unit-economy is achieved.

Is this right, and if not, where and what? And is there anything important that I left out?

[dream_weaver]

5. Designate the class with a word that serves as a perceptual-symbol to retain it in your mind as the mental equivalent of a particular.

5. Designate the class with a word that serves as a perceptual-symbol to retain it in your mind as the mental-entity which is related to (derived from, refers to) the particular(s).

[dream_weaver]

Neurological processes are a type of physiological process, so I will take your question to pose neurological and non-neurological physiological processes as the alternatives. The evidence is for both, referencing the way light obeys the principles of optics in traversing the physiology of the eye before it gets to the optic nerve and the way sound is detected by the cochlea of the ear via sorting sound waves by their wavelength.

That difference and similarity is perceived is the position of Rand in ITOE, Peikoff in various lectures, and Kelley in his book on perception. (Consensus!)

Looking at my earlier comments in retrospect, the neurological processes referenced show a metaphysical basis for difference and similarity on the perceptual level that conceptual consciousness then uses as the raw materials to build with.

[2046]

So is that all that’s wrong with it?

[Grames]

So is that all that’s wrong with it?

Essentially correct. You don’t mention the CCD. Don’t expect to “get it” all at once.

What you learn here feeds directly into Rand’s principles of definition. Note the parallel roles of genus and differentia in a definition to the difference and similarity given by perception. This is why Rand can claim an explicit definition is not needed for first level concepts, the functional equivalent was always present.

[mike_o]

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. 

[dream_weaver]

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.

 

[mike_o]

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.

 

[Plasmatic]

I’m curious Mike, are you interested in Objectivism as a system of factual identifications, or are you just working to obtain ideational fluency? 

Either way_,_ your doing a good job_._

[mike_o]

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.  

[mike_o]

Measurement Omission

Ayn Rand states on page 141 of ITOE 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd edition:

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

 

From a 1^st 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 1^st person perspective.

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

[mike_o]

 

Edited: Revised the definition of measurement omission

Measurement Omission

Ayn Rand states on page 141 of ITOE 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd edition:

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

 

From a 1^st 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 1^st person perspective.

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

[mike_o]

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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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”. 

 

 

[Eiuol]

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.

[mike_o]

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.

[dream_weaver]

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.

 

 

[Eiuol]

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.

[mike_o]

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

 

[mike_o]

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

[mike_o]

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.