Can we truly define what is an abstraction?

[CaptainQuasar]

OK then, what is the framework... what's the benchmark...

That's what I'm saying, there isn't anyone framework or benchmark that's "correct". There's no divinely ordained set of attributes that is the single axis which can be labeled "concrete" which all other attributes must be regarded as abstract in relation to. You can always come up with different frameworks and different benchmarks.

It's perfectly okay to label something as an abstraction, you just have to be cognizant of and communicate which framework and benchmark you're speaking within. Werg and the roommate couldn't agree because they were using different frameworks.

This is a dishonest strawman.

Dishonest? Seriously? Why the hell would I lie to you about anything of this sort?

Also, I don't think you understand what a strawman is. A straw man would be if I was setting up a fake version of your argument that I could knock down easily. The sharpness-as-concrete-property thing is my argument and I'm not knocking it down, I'm arguing in favor of it being equally as possible as knifeness being a concrete property.

" A rusty sharp object is still a sharp object.", no. As soon as the object in question starts losing the property sharpness, it is no longer a sharp object.

Rusty and sharp do not exclude each other. If you made a knife out of wrought iron and honed the blade to razor sharpness, then dipped it in water, by the time it dried off it would have a film of rust on it but it would still be razor-sharp.

When a knife loses the property sharpness, it may still qualify as a knife.

And similarly a sharp object could lose its property knifeness and still be a sharp object. You could take a steel knife and forge it into a flanged spearhead and attach it to a spear and it would still be a sharp object although it was no longer a knife.

Or you could take a knapped flint stone knife and smash it and you'd have a handful of small sharp objects that are not knives.

The difference here is that one is described through a number of properties including use and, to a certain extent, what it used to be, while the other is described on the basis of a single property.

I would concede that the description or definition of a sharp object is a simpler definition that that of a knife. But that doesn't mean that "sharp object" is an abstraction and "knife" is a totally concrete concept. Complexity of definition is not related to whether something can be an abstraction or not. You could have an abstraction with an extremely complex definition or an abstraction with an extremely simple definition.

The abstractions are not arbitrary. They are the abstractions that serve us the most and by which most definitions of objects can be decomposed. I could abstract "appleness" but that would have little use, aside from describing a relatively small class of objects. On the other hand, "redness", "roundness", "sharpness" and the likes are much more commonly found and can be combined to describe many classes of objects. When we retain abstractions, they should have the desirable property that they are almost if not entirely irreducible in terms of others, and that they can be found in many classes of objects.

Okay, this is just silly. Now you're admitting that any aspect of an object can be framed as the abstraction, and any as the concrete aspects. But you're insisting that your abstractions are right and my abstractions or your roommate's abstractions are wrong because yours are the best and most special - they have "desireable properties" and cover large classes of objects, eh? - and ours lack utility or something? Whatever.

You must realize that you're now no longer arguing that the color red is an abstraction but rather that it's a good abstraction, or that it's better to think of it as an abstraction than to think of it as concrete. Here's a gold star sticker, go ahead and put it on your abstractions which are the only valid ones because they're the bestest ever.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Another point - you guys know about Plato's concept of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms#The_pure_land", right? Plato basically said that objects themselves are abstractions or shadows of more real things, the Forms.

(Though I don't personally think that's really workable. But the point is, this argument has been going on for several thousand years.)

⚛​

 

[baywax]

You can always come up with different frameworks and different benchmarks.

Only if you're thinking in an abstract manner.

In order to establish concrete frameworks, benchmarks and compliments to abstraction, one can only rely on the empirical, predictive and quantitative powers of the sciences. We can't go around, willy nilly, deciding something is abstract because of this different framework I've come up with. That sort of blasphemy is the fodder of religion.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Only if you're thinking in an abstract manner.

In order to establish concrete frameworks, benchmarks and compliments to abstraction, one can only rely on the empirical, predictive and quantitative powers of the sciences. We can't go around, willy nilly, deciding something is abstract because of this different framework I've come up with. That sort of blasphemy is the fodder of religion.

Okay, so you're saying there's One True Framework that science hands down to us? Where does it derive from? And why is it that every few decades the scientific community says "oh, crap, we got everything wrong" and rewrites everything? Like the way physics and chemistry were completely re-structured due to the discoveries of quantum phenomena, or the way that the taxonomy of species in botany has been completely rearranged on a genetic basis during just the last few decades.

An empirical approach is to not assume that there's this one obvious framework that everyone just "knows".

Hey, if you think you can scientifically or empirically prove that redness is absolutely an abstraction and knifeness absolutely is concrete, go ahead and do so. I don't think you'll be able to do any better than Werg there; all you'll be able to say is that for some particular purpose of analysis there's more utility in labeling one or the other as the abstraction.

It is not scientific to make up authority out of thin air where there is none and claim that you know the "true" concrete aspects of the world and which things are "truly" abstractions. That sort of blasphemy is the fodder of religion.

⚛​

 

[Hurkyl]

That sort of blasphemy is the fodder of religion.

⚛​

Religion has nothing to do with it. That sort of blasphemy appears in all walks of life.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Just to point out, that "blasphemy" line isn't mine, I was simply repeating baywax's use of it. (sarcastically.)

⚛​

 

[Hurkyl]

Just to point out, that "blasphemy" line isn't mine, I was simply repeating baywax's use of it. (sarcastically.)

⚛​

Good point. Shame on baywax, then.

 

[Werg22]

That's what I'm saying, there isn't anyone framework or benchmark that's "correct". There's no divinely ordained set of attributes that is the single axis which can be labeled "concrete" which all other attributes must be regarded as abstract in relation to. You can always come up with different frameworks and different benchmarks.

It's perfectly okay to label something as an abstraction, you just have to be cognizant of and communicate which framework and benchmark you're speaking within. Werg and the roommate couldn't agree because they were using different frameworks.
Dishonest? Seriously? Why the hell would I lie to you about anything of this sort?

Also, I don't think you understand what a strawman is. A straw man would be if I was setting up a fake version of your argument that I could knock down easily. The sharpness-as-concrete-property thing is my argument and I'm not knocking it down, I'm arguing in favor of it being equally as possible as knifeness being a concrete property.
Rusty and sharp do not exclude each other. If you made a knife out of wrought iron and honed the blade to razor sharpness, then dipped it in water, by the time it dried off it would have a film of rust on it but it would still be razor-sharp.
And similarly a sharp object could lose its property knifeness and still be a sharp object. You could take a steel knife and forge it into a flanged spearhead and attach it to a spear and it would still be a sharp object although it was no longer a knife.

Or you could take a knapped flint stone knife and smash it and you'd have a handful of small sharp objects that are not knives.
I would concede that the description or definition of a sharp object is a simpler definition that that of a knife. But that doesn't mean that "sharp object" is an abstraction and "knife" is a totally concrete concept. Complexity of definition is not related to whether something can be an abstraction or not. You could have an abstraction with an extremely complex definition or an abstraction with an extremely simple definition.
Okay, this is just silly. Now you're admitting that any aspect of an object can be framed as the abstraction, and any as the concrete aspects. But you're insisting that your abstractions are right and my abstractions or your roommate's abstractions are wrong because yours are the best and most special - they have "desireable properties" and cover large classes of objects, eh? - and ours lack utility or something? Whatever.

You must realize that you're now no longer arguing that the color red is an abstraction but rather that it's a good abstraction, or that it's better to think of it as an abstraction than to think of it as concrete. Here's a gold star sticker, go ahead and put it on your abstractions which are the only valid ones because they're the bestest ever.

⚛​

Hey, they're not just my abstractions. That's why redness, roundness and sharpness are actual words, while "appleness" and "flowerness" aren't.

All you have basically done is throw the classic "everything is relative".

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Hey, they're not just my abstractions. That's why redness, roundness and sharpness are actual words, while "appleness" and "flowerness" aren't.

All you have basically done is throw the classic "everything is relative".

Well there's a reason why it's a classic and that's because it's pretty frequently true.

If you want to believe that your 21st century English vocabulary somehow determines reality, go ahead. (And feel free to ignore phrases such as "like an apple" or "like a flower" as you're already doing, of course.) But if all you've got is "it's conventional" or "it's traditional" or utilitarian arguments I have to maintain that you're being pretty arbitrary if you want to use that to insist that you're in possession of some absolute and correct definition of what is an abstraction and what is concrete.

Like I said, it's perfectly fine to talk about redness as an abstraction if you're doing so in a particular context. But when you yourself are saying things like a sabre is a knife when you're using it in your kitchen, and there are plastic knives and stone knives and scalpels and Crocodile Dundee buck knives, it seems ludicrous to me to insist that in some absolute or non-contextual sense "knife" is a concrete concept but "color" is a total abstraction.

⚛​

 

[baywax]

Okay, so you're saying there's One True Framework that science hands down to us? Where does it derive from? And why is it that every few decades the scientific community says "oh, crap, we got everything wrong" and rewrites everything? Like the way physics and chemistry were completely re-structured due to the discoveries of quantum phenomena, or the way that the taxonomy of species in botany has been completely rearranged on a genetic basis during just the last few decades.

An empirical approach is to not assume that there's this one obvious framework that everyone just "knows".

Hey, if you think you can scientifically or empirically prove that redness is absolutely an abstraction and knifeness absolutely is concrete, go ahead and do so. I don't think you'll be able to do any better than Werg there; all you'll be able to say is that for some particular purpose of analysis there's more utility in labeling one or the other as the abstraction.

It is not scientific to make up authority out of thin air where there is none and claim that you know the "true" concrete aspects of the world and which things are "truly" abstractions. That sort of blasphemy is the fodder of religion.

⚛​

Here's some definitions of our pivotal terminology.

Abstract

abstract
adjective |abˈstrakt; ˈabˌstrakt|
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence : abstract concepts such as love or beauty.
• dealing with ideas rather than events : the novel was too abstract and esoteric to sustain much attention.
• not based on a particular instance; theoretical : we have been discussing the problem in a very abstract manner.
• (of a word, esp. a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object : abstract words like truth or equality.
• of or relating to abstract art : abstract pictures that look like commercial color charts.
verb |abˈstrakt| [ trans. ]
1 consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else : to abstract science and religion from their historical context can lead to anachronism.
• [ intrans. ] form a general idea in this way : he cannot form a general notion by abstracting from particulars.
2 extract or remove (something) : applications to abstract more water from streams.
• used euphemistically to say that someone has stolen something : his pockets contained all he had been able to abstract from the apartment.
• ( abstract oneself) withdraw : as our relationship deepened you seemed to abstract yourself.
3 make a written summary of (an article or book) : staff who index and abstract material for an online database.
noun |ˈabˌstrakt|
1 a summary or statement of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech : the abstracts must be as concise as possible.
2 an abstract work of art : a big unframed abstract.
3 ( the abstract) that which is abstract; the theoretical consideration of something : the abstract must be made concrete by examples.
PHRASES
in the abstract in a general way; without reference to specific instances : there's a fine line between promoting U.S. business interests in the abstract and promoting specific companies.
DERIVATIVES
abstractly adverb
abstractor |-tər| noun ( in sense 3 of the verb ).
ORIGIN Middle English : from Latin abstractus, literally ‘drawn away,’ past participle of abstrahere, from ab- ‘from’ + trahere ‘draw off.’

Thesaurus
abstract
adjective
1 abstract concepts theoretical, conceptual, notional, intellectual, metaphysical, ideal, philosophical, academic; rare ideational. antonym actual, concrete.
2 abstract art nonrepresentational, nonpictorial. antonym representational.
verb
1 we'll be abstracting material for an online database summarize, précis, abridge, condense, compress, shorten, cut down, abbreviate, synopsize; rare epitomize.
2 he abstracted the art of tragedy from its context extract, isolate, separate, detach.
noun
an abstract of her speech summary, synopsis, précis, résumé, outline, abridgment, digest, summation; wrap-up.

Arbitary

arbitrary |ˈärbiˌtrerē|
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system : his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary.
• (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority : arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible.
• Mathematics (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
DERIVATIVES
arbitrarily |ˌärbiˈtre(ə)rəlē| adverb
arbitrariness noun
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [dependent on one's will or pleasure, discretionary] ): from Latin arbitrarius, from arbiter ‘judge, supreme ruler,’ perhaps influenced by French arbitraire.

Thesaurus
arbitrary
adjective
1 an arbitrary decision capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable; casual, wanton, unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unsupported, irrational, illogical, groundless, unjustified; personal, discretionary, subjective. antonym reasoned, rational.
2 the arbitrary power of the prince autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian, high-handed; absolute, uncontrolled, unlimited, unrestrained. antonym democratic.

Oxford's English Dictionary

So, our discussion is based on the idea that colour exists only in thought or is an abstract idea. That must mean that the absorption rate of the colour red is just an idea in our heads and not a physical property. This lead to the abstraction that physical properties are abstract because we can only evaluate them by delineating the idea of a property as abstract.

What everyone is forgetting is that there is an process taking place that produces the idea or the abstraction of colour and all macrocosmic and physical properties. Its the physical event of neuronal interaction that gives us the idea or the abstraction of all properties.

This neurological event that creates an idea, a decision and even a metaphor is superior to all abstraction and generation of ideas. This is because, as has been demonstrated for eons, when you take away the neurological processes of the brain, suddenly there are no more abstractions taking place. So here it is plain to see that a concrete function is the root of all abstract ideas and is therefore proof that there is a concrete, comparable and complementary state to the state of abstraction. And this phenomenon that dictates how and where ideas and abstractions arise offers a glimpse into the true reality of nature and its many, separate states... particularly the microcosmic and macrocosmic states.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

So, our discussion is based on the idea that colour exists only in thought or is an abstract idea.

This is not my interpretation of what we're discussing. "Exists only in thought" and "is an abstraction" do not mean the same thing. If you're talking only about the experience of seeing red in your head, rather than the property or nature that red objects or environments have in common, this was my response to that from my first post in the thread:

You could try to say that redness is only in the experience, and hence be trying to advance the notion that red things aren't red when no one is looking, but that does seem like semantics to me - like you'd be intentionally misunderstanding your interlocutor to gird your own position in the discussion.

So, what I have been talking about above is the property or nature that red objects or environments have in common and whether or not that absolutely must be regarded as an abstraction.

⚛​

 

[baywax]

This is not my interpretation of what we're discussing. "Exists only in thought" and "is an abstraction" do not mean the same thing. If you're talking only about the experience of seeing red in your head, rather than the property or nature that red objects or environments have in common, this was my response to that from my first post in the thread:



So, what I have been talking about above is the property or nature that red objects or environments have in common and whether or not that absolutely must be regarded as an abstraction.

⚛​

That's a relief. Logically, if abstraction is the product of physical, cognitive interpretation of other physical events then abstractions, illusions and concepts are physical in nature themselves.

Our brains interpret the physical events that stimulate it. The events can be internal stimulus or external stimulus. Our interpretations may be wrong or anthropocentric to assign certain values, symbols or qualities to certain events, but that doesn't disqualify the event as being physical and actually taking place.

 

[Werg22]

Well there's a reason why it's a classic and that's because it's pretty frequently true.

If you want to believe that your 21st century English vocabulary somehow determines reality, go ahead. (And feel free to ignore phrases such as "like an apple" or "like a flower" as you're already doing, of course.) But if all you've got is "it's conventional" or "it's traditional" or utilitarian arguments I have to maintain that you're being pretty arbitrary if you want to use that to insist that you're in possession of some absolute and correct definition of what is an abstraction and what is concrete.

Like I said, it's perfectly fine to talk about redness as an abstraction if you're doing so in a particular context. But when you yourself are saying things like a sabre is a knife when you're using it in your kitchen, and there are plastic knives and stone knives and scalpels and Crocodile Dundee buck knives, it seems ludicrous to me to insist that in some absolute or non-contextual sense "knife" is a concrete concept but "color" is a total abstraction.

⚛​

From post #40:

At the basic level, we get a sense of a relationship; a red flower and a red apple have a similar property, at the next level there is usually an adjective: a red apple, a red flower. Finally there is the complete abstraction of the property in question, namely "red".

Where did I say that "knife" is a concrete concept? Are ghosts and unicorns concrete concepts? I hold them on the same pedestal as knife.

 

[baywax]

Where did I say that "knife" is a concrete concept? Are ghosts and unicorns concrete concepts? I hold them on the same pedestal as knife.

Concepts are concrete events so they do exist on an equal footing whether they are concepts of ghosts or concepts of colour.

The difference is in the fact that the stimulus your brain has received concerning unicorns has come from word of mouth or by written word or by illustrations. All of which are abstractions of what may or may not be a real, physical phenomenon. With a colour however, your brain is stimulated by a colourful event and it creates an interpretive concept of an actual, physical event. Through the physical process of abstraction, your brain assigns a term like "red" to the physical event.

[edit] this assignment of terminology (or what many are calling abstraction) is a survival trait. It not only works toward the survival of the individual but also helps a communicating group of individuals to survive. So that, when I say "red sky in the morning, sailor's warning" the next person preparing to sail checks the sky for a condition that has been termed a "red" sky.

extra edit: If the brain had to say... "the quality of light that has a blah dee blah absorption rate, or is such and such a wavelength of light" instead of "red"... I doubt we would be talking about this today... because there'd be no human species left to make quick, abbreviated abstractions about natural, physical events.

 

[WaveJumper]

"Matter" is merely vacuum fluctuations

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html

Thought this qualified under the "abstraction" argument; the comments after the article are pretty interesting too.

Don't read if you have a weak heart.

 

[baywax]

"Matter" is merely vacuum fluctuations

At least their not saying matter is a result of mass hypnosis or some grand hologram that's projected by people's existential abstractions.

 

[Pythagorean]

At least their not saying matter is a result of mass hypnosis or some grand hologram that's projected by people's existential abstractions.

yeah, that's pretty much the kind of view I find useless.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

From post #40:

At the basic level, we get a sense of a relationship; a red flower and a red apple have a similar property, at the next level there is usually an adjective: a red apple, a red flower. Finally there is the complete abstraction of the property in question, namely "red".

Where did I say that "knife" is a concrete concept? Are ghosts and unicorns concrete concepts? I hold them on the same pedestal as knife.

Okay, so if there are no concrete concepts, if "knife" and "red" and everything else are as insubstantial to you as "unicorn", then as your roommate was saying "everything in your world is an abstraction". That's what I have been agreeing with all along. As I said from the very beginning, your approach could be used to declare anything at all to be an abstraction.

And furthermore, if "knife" is as insubstantial and non-concrete as a unicorn, I don't get why the heck you were accusing me of being dishonest for saying that knifeness could be regarded as an abstraction. The way you're behaving doesn't make sense to me.

⚛​

 

[jambaugh]

Much has already been said but given I have an inflated estimate of my own opinion's value... here's my $0.02 worth.

From the perspective of science all "things" are abstractions since the epistemological atom of science is the observed phenomenon. A coherent system of phenomena (e.g. we see a bright light in the sky every night which correlates with tides and werewolf bites) which is sufficiently consistent is abstracted to an ontological object (e.g. the moon).

Now color is less so since it is a stimulatory phenomenon instead of an object. It is a relative phenomenon in that it depends on our physiological sensory make-up as opposed to say a broad spectrum spectrometer.

Finally the meta-concept of abstraction is really itself better used in a relative context as a comparative. "number" is an abstraction on "5" which is an abstraction on "5 ducks" which is an abstraction on "I see many phenomena which resolve into 5 sets of 'ducklike' perceptions.' ... ad infinitum.

You'll never successfully find the primary atoms from which all is abstracted. Rather you just dive in with tentative "object" definitions and abstract or modify definitions on the fly until things stabilize within the context in which you are working. Be aware of this fluid aspect of language and then beware of shifts in context which alter semantic meaning.