Freedom is an Abstract Idea

[coberst]

Freedom is an Abstract Idea

 

I love chocolates, I love freedom, I love mom, I love my dog, I love April in Paris, etc. When we abstract (disassociate from any instance) we remove the contingent (unpredictable). When I abstract all of this lovin I am left with that which is ‘necessary and sufficient’ I am left with an emotion. When I attach this abstract idea of ‘love’ to these other entities I have a specific instance of an abstract idea.

 

Is the emotion attached to each one of these abstract ideas exactly the same? I suspect no one knows or can know.

 

When I am ready to die for or to kill for ‘patriotism’--love of country—I guess I should better understand what this business of abstract ideas is all about.

 

No doubt there are many different conceptions of this expression ‘abstract idea’ but I have found one that works for me and it appears to be well founded, justified by empirical evidence, and endorsed by reputable cognitive scientists. I shall use the metaphor ‘abstract idea is chemical compound’. A metaphor has a number of meanings and one important meaning is ‘simile’.

 

In chemistry we have atoms joined together to make molecules and molecules joined together to make compounds.

 

“Metaphor allows conventional mental imagery from sensorimotor domains to be used for domains of subjective experience.”

 

An infant is born and when embraced for the first time by its mother the infant experiences the sensation of warmth. In succeeding experiences the warmth is felt along with other sensations.

 

Empirical data verifies that there often happens a conflation (blending) of this sensation experience together with the development of a subjective (abstract) concept we can call affection. With each similar experience the infant fortifies both the sensation experience and the affection experience and a little later this conflation aspect ends and the child has these two concepts in different mental spaces. This conflation leads us to readily recognize the metaphor ‘affection is warmth’.

 

Cognitive science uses metaphor in the standard usage as we are all accustomed to but it also uses a new concept that you are unfamiliar with unless you have been reading this book. This new concept is called ‘conceptual metaphor’. Conceptual metaphor is the heart of this new cognitive science and represents what will be in my opinion the first paradigm of cognitive science.

 

In my example I speak of two separate mental spaces one being the experience of being held and the other is the subjective experience of affection. The theory behind the ‘conceptual metaphor’ is that the structure of the sense experience can and is often automatically without conscious intention mapped into a new mental space.

 

The experience structure can be mapped into a new mental space and thereby becomes part of the structure of that new mental space. In this fashion these conceptual metaphors can act somewhat like atoms that join together to make a molecule.

[InfiniteNow]

I love chocolates, I love freedom, I love mom, I love my dog, I love April in Paris, etc. ...Is the emotion attached to each one of these abstract ideas exactly the same? I suspect no one knows or can know.

I would say no, that's my perspective on the matter. There is certainly some degree of overlap in each, and several parellels among these various expressions of love, but each is still unique and special, not able to fit within a single set of parameters.

 

Now, metaphor and similie, while similar, really are not the same, but since that's not the intention of your post, I will choose not to expand on this.

 

 

I question, what is the difference between this "conceptual metaphor" about which you speak and the idea of context?

 

The concept of context is already broadly acknowledged to be intricately linked with awareness, memory, knowledge and other cognitively related aspects of our experience, and has been studied extensively. What does the concept of a "conceptual metaphor" add to the knowledge base already available, and how is it different?

[coberst]

Metaphor is often used to help define the meaning of another concept. ‘Know is see’ is a metaphor that is obvious. ‘More is up’ is less obvious but a person trying to bake cornbread and pours milk into a measuring cup will comprehend its meaning.

 

The ‘conceptual metaphor’ that is defined in “Philosophy in The Flesh” and will be, I think, the first paradigm of cognitive science is something a little different but shares some of the same characteristics. The conceptual metaphor is similar to our normally used metaphor in that the conceptual metaphor forms the foundation of the new concept just as the regular metaphor forms the bases for comprehension of a new concept.

 

An infant is born and when embraced for the first time by its mother the infant experiences the sensation of warmth. In succeeding experiences the warmth is felt along with other sensations.

 

Empirical data verifies that there often happens a conflation (blending) of this sensation experience together with the development of a subjective (abstract) concept we can call affection. With each similar experience the infant fortifies both the sensation experience and the affection experience and a little later this conflation aspect ends and the child has these two concepts in different mental spaces.

 

This conflation leads us to readily recognize the metaphor ‘affection is warmth’.

 

Cognitive science uses metaphor in the standard usage as we are all accustomed to but it also uses a new concept that you are unfamiliar with unless you have been reading this book. This new concept is called ‘conceptual metaphor’. Conceptual metaphor is the heart of this new cognitive science and represents what will be in my opinion the first paradigm of cognitive science.

 

In my example I speak of two separate mental spaces one being the experience of being held and the other is the subjective experience of affection. The theory behind the ‘conceptual metaphor’ is that the structure of the sense experience can and is often automatically without conscious intention mapped into a new mental space.

 

The experience structure can be mapped into a new mental space and thereby becomes part of the structure of that new mental space. In this fashion these conceptual metaphors can act somewhat like atoms that join together to make a molecule.

[InfiniteNow]

The ‘conceptual metaphor’ that is defined in “Philosophy in The Flesh” and will be, I think, the first paradigm of cognitive science is something a little different but shares some of the same characteristics.

Do you perhaps mean paradigm shift?

 

The conceptual metaphor is similar to our normally used metaphor in that the conceptual metaphor forms the foundation of the new concept just as the regular metaphor forms the bases for comprehension of a new concept.

Still, how is this different from context?

 

 

An infant is born and when embraced for the first time by its mother the infant experiences the sensation of warmth. In succeeding experiences the warmth is felt along with other sensations.

 

Empirical data verifies that there often happens a conflation (blending) of this sensation experience together with the development of a subjective (abstract) concept we can call affection. With each similar experience the infant fortifies both the sensation experience and the affection experience and a little later this conflation aspect ends and the child has these two concepts in different mental spaces.

 

This conflation leads us to readily recognize the metaphor ‘affection is warmth’.

 

Cognitive science uses metaphor in the standard usage as we are all accustomed to but it also uses a new concept that you are unfamiliar with unless you have been reading this book. This new concept is called ‘conceptual metaphor’. Conceptual metaphor is the heart of this new cognitive science and represents what will be in my opinion the first paradigm of cognitive science.

 

In my example I speak of two separate mental spaces one being the experience of being held and the other is the subjective experience of affection. The theory behind the ‘conceptual metaphor’ is that the structure of the sense experience can and is often automatically without conscious intention mapped into a new mental space.

 

The experience structure can be mapped into a new mental space and thereby becomes part of the structure of that new mental space. In this fashion these conceptual metaphors can act somewhat like atoms that join together to make a molecule.

 

I read all this the first time you posted it... still doesn't answer the question though. Thanks.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Read Lakoff & Johnson - "Metaphors we Live By."

 

Argument is war.

 

TFS

[coberst]

Infinity says—

 

--“Do you perhaps mean paradigm shift?”

 

As I comprehend the matter cognitive science does not and has not ever had a paradigm. I must admit that I am not certain of this. I thought that cognitive science has been working under an AI umbrella but that this was not an accomplished paradigm. I am under the impression that AI, or perhaps symbol manipulation, has lost its attraction.

 

--Still, how is this different from context?

 

I guess that I do not comprehend the question. You will have to enlighten me as to the nature of ‘context’ in this context.

[InfiniteNow]

Infinity says—

 

I can only assume you are referring to me, but it's InfiniteNow.

 

--“Do you perhaps mean paradigm shift?”

 

As I comprehend the matter cognitive science does not and has not ever had a paradigm. I must admit that I am not certain of this. I thought that cognitive science has been working under an AI umbrella but that this was not an accomplished paradigm. I am under the impression that AI, or perhaps symbol manipulation, has lost its attraction.

 

A paradigm is defined by dictionary.com as:

1. One that serves as a pattern or model.
   
2. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.
   
3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
   

 

I believe that although you or I may be inept at accurately describing the previous pattern, forms, set of assumptions/concepts/values/or practices which have previously been applied to cognition, it still has one. However, if I were to guess, it would be reaction time studies and perhaps fMRI/PET/SQUID based modelling.

 

While some computer scientists have approached this from the motivation of AI programming, I would not characterize all mind scientists and cognitive researchers in this AI paradigm group as you imply.

 

 

--Still, how is this different from context?

 

I guess that I do not comprehend the question. You will have to enlighten me as to the nature of ‘context’ in this context.

 

Well, you clearly know what I mean, but just in case, you may consider checking out this wiki article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context

 

 

This is now my third request for clarifiation. If you cannot do so, just say so.

 

How's this concept of a "conceptual metaphor" different from the concept of context, and what does it add to our current body of knowledge?

[IDMclean]

Well, first of course I would suggest Conceptual metaphor, to help you answers your own question.

 

I would say from just a brief skim over, that the difference is fundamental. Context is that which surrounds a given event and indicates the meaning of the event. Conceptual Metaphor, it would seem, is identification of and search of context.

 

That is finding the context by attempting to match source metaphors (what I call symbols), to target metaphors. Lacking a match, one then has to generate a new set of source metaphors from synthesis of common elements. Thereby creating a new context within the cognitive self.

 

That is abstraction on my part, compared to my core belief structure, or source symbol/metaphor set.

 

Also, the difference I would think stems from a division of Abstract from Concrete. Context is a major element of concrete application, where as Concept is a major element of abstract application.

 

Just my attempt to make a symbol of it.

[coberst]

InfiniteNow

 

Sorry about the error in the name.

 

Regarding the paradigm; I do not know for certain the situation but my understanding is that there are many cognitive scientists who do not accept anything as a paradigm for this science. But I will accept your evaluation of the matter.

 

There is no correlation between conceptual metaphor and context. I cannot see even such being a possibility is why I was unable to answer your question.

 

Conceptual metaphor is for me a brand new and revolutionary concept. I had to study this book “Philosophy in the Flesh” for several months before the dawn of understanding. I suspect that you can find many Google sites that might make the matter clearer but I suspect that you will have to borrow the book from the library as I did. I read it for several weeks and decided to buy it because it opened up a new way of ‘seeing’ the world that philosophy never gave me.

[InfiniteNow]

Conceptual metaphor is for me a brand new and revolutionary concept... it opened up a new way of ‘seeing’ the world that philosophy never gave me.

Thank you coberst. I very much appreciate your response.

 

I've been trying to figure this one out as well. In fact, I was struggling to answer my own question. I get the sense that conceptual metaphor has less to do with surroundings, and more to do with the imagination... more to do with the ability to empathize.

 

If I understand the world in terms of metaphors, then I must have at least a vague concept of someone else's world to better understand the metaphors by which they live.

 

 

Cheers. :lol:

[Freddy]

Freedom is an illusion that exists in the human mind. From 1970, "freedom paint me a picture, show it to me right now, where are you freedom...?"

[InfiniteNow]

Freedom is an illusion that exists in the human mind.

What isn't?

[lemit]

I've skimmed this thread. I tried reading it carefully and got a headache. What I was able to read before my head started hurting was confusing.

 

Freedom is, of course, an abstraction. It has no physical cognitive. All metaphors are conceptual. They are alternative concepts of reality. That is their definition. The pope, as far as I know, is Catholic. I'm going to check with some wildlife bioligists about the sanitary habits of bears, but I think I know what their answer will be.

 

Am I missing some substance somewhere? Should I fight through my headache, or would I just find a much worse headache? I really hope I'm wrong. The alternatives and their explanations would be fascinating.

 

--lemit

[coberst]

Learning can be a vexing exercise but as Carl Sagan once said that understanding can be an ecstatic experience.