What are “concrete concepts”?

[coberst]

What are “concrete concepts”?

 

I remember having watched, on TV, a high-jumper performing an obvious mental imagery of his up-coming jump just before he actually performed his physical feat. I could watch his gaze going through the running to the bar and lifting himself up and over the bar. It was obvious that he was doing a practice jump in his mind just before he actually performed the jump.

 

I have discovered since that time that this is somewhat standard practice for athletes.

 

What do these practices, plus the recent empirical evidence regarding neural cognitive science, tell us about the nature of conceptualization and knowledge?

 

One can analyze the nature of our psyche from the phenomenological and from the neurobiological aspect. SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has, in the last several decades, developed theories about both of these aspects of human activity.

 

“A central tenet of an embodied cognitive theory of concepts is that concrete concepts (that is, concepts for concrete objects, events, and actions) are processed using sensorimotor areas of the brain…The guiding idea here is that thinking using a concrete concept involve activating many of the same sensorimotor neural clusters that would be activated in actually perceiving something, manipulating an object, or moving one’s body.”

 

Such ideas as one finds in the above quote seem to me to be obvious if one considers Darwin’s theory of natural selection. If natural selection is a true theory then there must be continuity throughout the chain of being. Thus humans, like their non-human ancestors, must be expected to use these sensorimotor neural networks for concrete experience.

 

We generally speak about knowledge from a phenomenological perspective; recent developments in neuroscience, however limited, suggest some of the neural bases for conceptualization.

 

“Concepts are neural activation patterns that can either be “turned on” by some actual perceptual or motoric event in our bodies, or else activated when we merely think about something, without actually perceiving it or performing a specific action.”

 

Have you ever performed this mental imaging of an athletic performance just before attempting to do it?

 

If you have learned to type have you ever, like me, asked your self where on the key board is “y” and discovered you had to depend upon your fingers for that information?

 

If all concrete concepts result from sensorimotor aided experience does this mean that all concepts, either concrete or subjective, are grounded in sensorimotor aided experience?

 

Quotes from The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding by Mark Johnson

[Rade]

The relationship between 'concretes' and 'concepts' is a major topic in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The process of concept-formation for Rand involves stages. First is the mental process of 'abstraction', the act of isolating attributes or motions or numbers from 'concrete entities'. Thus abstractions as such do not exist, that which exists are the concrete entities. Once the attributes-motions-numbers have been, in a sense, mentally eliminated from the equation, the next step in the process of concept formation is the integration of two or more of the isolated concrete entities into what is called a 'concept'. There is nothing at all 'subjective' about the process of concept formation--it is 100% an 'objective' process. If what your mind forms is based on subjective action, whatever it is that is formed is not a concept. The end of the mental integration process involves placing a new label or 'definition' on the new concept formed. Thus the reason why 'concepts' and their 'definitions' are two separate mental processes, yet of course related. First the mind forms a concept, then it places a label on that concept that we call a definition. Definitions may change over time we more is learned about the 'concrete entities' upon which the concept is based.

 

Now, for Rand there are two basic types of concepts, 'introspective' and 'extrospective'. So, your example of the high-jumper thinking about the outcome of a future jump, their expectations of final result, is an good example of introspective concept-formation of Rand. According to Rand, the mental thinking of the high-jumper at the line is in two steps (1) isolating the attributes-motions-numbers (measurements) of all past jumps they have conducted from the concrete event of the 'jump-itself'--the future event to occur, and then (2) integrating all of the past concrete jump events it has ever conducted into new introspective concept of the future jump based on the current conditions (that is, the new concept is placed into context), what could be called the psychological process of mentally forming the ideal jump within the mind in the present, based on the past experience, prior to future action (running down the run way and jumping).

 

Rand predicted that the process of concept-formation that she defined would someday be isolated within the human mind--and your post indicates it may be attached to area of brain involved with sensorimotor aided experience.

 

So perhaps physical touching of concrete entities is a prior evolutionary step in the abstraction step of concept formation ? An interesting hypothesis. The example Rand gives is that, while animals can perceive concrete entities--their motions, attributes, etc. what they cannot do is isolate these motions and attributes from the concrete entities themself. That is, while an animal can perceive that two apples differ from two grapes, what it cannot mentally grasp is the concept "two". (I do not know the research on primates--perhaps this statement is in error). Your post 'suggests' (much more experiment needs to be conducted) that the mental process of grasping the concept "two" requires prior 'motor' experience (touch) rather than sight or smell--seems like an interesting topic for future research.

[coberst]

Rade

 

Objectivism is a philosophy that understands the world as made up of determinate, mind-independent objects with inherent characteristics or “essences”. This philosophical view of reason is that reason is capable of “mirroring” objects with their qualities and relationships in a linear and undistorted fashion. Objectivism holds that principles are high order generalizations that can function as fundamental laws that characterize categories, which are the necessary and sufficient definition of objects of reality.

 

Rationality is framed and contained by the systematic nature of human conceptual processes. “Human rationality is motivated…imaginative rationality is indeterminate in more-or-less predictable ways.”

 

“The concept of motivation…has nothing to do with subjective intent, but rather refers to what makes sense of—that is, what structures, constitutes, and enables—particular thought.”

 

Traditional philosophical objectivism assumes (i.e. takes for granted) “that reason is available to control and direct the movement from authoritative sources to the logical decision of a concrete case”.

 

In legal matters “reasoning consists in abstracting from a judicial opinion or other authoritative legal text the principles that express the necessary and sufficient conditions, properties, or criteria that characterize it.” In normal everyday considerations reasoning consists in ascertaining the categories that characterizes the situation.

 

Quotes from A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind Steven L. Winter, Law Professor

 

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has challenged a priori philosophy like objectivism. I no longer agree with such a philosophy as objectivism. Also I consider Ayn Rand objectivism to be more of a cult than a philosophy.

[Rade]

Dear Coberst,

 

I appreciate your quotes from others, but I see you did not provide any comments on the specifics of what I presented concerning the relationship between 'concrete' and 'concepts'.

 

You began this thread with the question....what are concrete concepts?....Are you saying you do not agree that concepts derive from the concrete, or do you agree ??--I have no idea from your comments above.

 

Many share your position that the ideas of Ayn Rand are not philosophy--however, this view is not shared by all professional philosophers, neither is it shared by the American Philosophic Association. I find her complete writings to be a valid attempt at philosophy. Here are comments from Wiki---

 

In recent years Rand's works are more likely to be encountered in the classroom than in decades past.[98] The Ayn Rand Society, dedicated to fostering the scholarly study of Objectivism, is affiliated with the American Philosophical Association's Eastern Division.[100] Since 1999, several monographs were published and a refereed Journal of Ayn Rand Studies began.[101] In 2006 the University of Pittsburgh held a conference focusing on Objectivism.[102] In addition, two Objectivist philosophers (Tara Smith and James Lennox) hold tenured positions at two of the fifteen leading American philosophy departments.[103] Objectivist programs and fellowships have been supported at the University of Pittsburgh[104] University of Texas at Austin[105] and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[106]

 

You and other readers of this thread can read more about Rand's philosophy at this Wiki link--this includes a good literature cited section on the works of Rand and others concerning her philosophy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

[Rade]

.....Objectivism is a philosophy that understands the world as made up of determinate, mind-independent objects with inherent characteristics or “essences”....

 

No, this in not at all what Rand is saying. You need to read her work...Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology...

 

What you have stated above is the view of Aristotle concerning the nature of 'essence' of concrete objects (entities). In this view, the essence of the thing is regarded as metaphysical. Rand takes 180 degree opposite view of Aristotle. For Rand, the essence of the object (entity, thing) is epistemological. The 'essences' are determined contextually via experience, they are not 'inherent characteristics' as you state above. The process of classification of the essential characteristics of any object-entity-thing is a device of human cognition. For Rand the 'essence' of an object-entity-thing may be altered over time with increase in knowledge (information). The metaphysical referent is the sum total of the facts given to the senses of the reality that some existent, exits.

 

As a modification of your false comment above, we can say this....Objectivism is a philosophy that understands the world by the axiom...Existence exists...where Existence is Identity and Consciousness is Identification.