Abstraction is falsification?

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ecmandu

It’s not a paradox or a contradiction to state that (A = A) and (A \neq A).

If every instance of (A) refers to the same thing and if (=) and (\neq) are defined as polar opposites, then you are necessarily contradicting yourself.

I can accept that there are no two physical objects that are completely equal but I cannot accet that there are no two physical objects that are equal in part.

There may be no physical cats that are equal in every regard but there certainly are physical cats that are equal in color (and in many other ways.)

[Magnus_Anderson]

@KT

But it is not a mere symbol. It has connotations and its primary meaning. And when it sits minds, as it only does, in the processes of the mind, it affects the way we perceive and think of specific individuals in the category. We see, literally, what we think a cat is when a cat appears. We have expectations, a kind of set of heuristics of expectations. And these expectations will often hang on despite counter-evidence. In some ideal, non-existent, computer brain abstracting might not cause distortion. The ideas related to cat would be over there somewhere while other parts of the mind directly experienced the specific animal without expectations caused by the word ‘cat’, without the trimming off of specificities when ‘seeing’ the cat, without the way we often set aside and in general to some exent think we have experienced and understood something when we categorize it…but in the minds we know of abstraction mingle with and strong affect what we experience and how we think of it and how we remember it.

I can only make a guess what you’re trying to say here. It may be a pretty good guess, but still, there’s a chance I will misinterpret you.

My usual approach is to ask people to clarify their position, but when that doesn’t lead to desirable results, I tend to give up and resort to guesswork.

The way I see it, you are making the same mistake that Wendy is making. You are talking about the process of going from what is abstract/general to what is concrete/specific. I am not really sure that’s the process of abstraction. Indeed, it looks like precisely the opposite process to me.

There is a huge difference between classifying humans as either male or female and using such classifications to determine how intelligent they are. This is because “male” and “female” are words that say nothing about one’s intelligence. So if you correctly identify someone as female, it neither follows that they are intelligent nor that they are unintelligent from that classification alone. It is only when you combine it with a certain type of belief, such as that all females are unintelligent and all males are intelligent, that it follows that that particular human being is either intelligent or unintelligent.

[obsrvr524]

@Ecmandu

It’s impossible for this A to equal this A.

So we have two things going on here…

The concept of categories. This implies eternal forms.

If you are talking about Aristotle’s Dialectics principle, A=A, wasn’t he just saying that when speaking (dialectics) you are always to use the same name for the same thing? I don’t think it had anything at all to do with any equality of things.

[Ecmandu]

@Magnus Anderson

@Ecmandu

It’s not a paradox or a contradiction to state that (A = A) and (A \neq A).

If every instance of (A) refers to the same thing and if (=) and (\neq) are defined as polar opposites, then you are necessarily contradicting yourself.

I can accept that there are no two physical objects that are completely equal but I cannot accet that there are no two physical objects that are equal in part.

There may be no physical cats that are equal in every regard but there certainly are physical cats that are equal in color (and in many other ways.)

You didn’t understand what I said. A and /A are only VISUAL contradictions… the conceptual mind is greater than the visual mind.

[Magnus_Anderson]

What are “visual contradictions”, Ecmandu?

[Ecmandu]

@Magnus Anderson

What are “visual contradictions”, Ecmandu?

This A visually is not equal to this A.

That’s a fact.

Now, because of a sweet zone of perceptual acuity, they look exactly the same.

[Magnus_Anderson]

It’s not a contradiction, Ecmandu.

You are making two different but compatible claims.

1. The two images are not equal in every regard.

2. The two images are equal in part.

Consider two bitmaps that are showing one and the same scene where one is in color and the other is black-and-white.

The two bitmaps are not equal in every regard because in order to be equal in every regard every pixel at position ((x, y)) in one image would need to have the same RGB value that the pixel at position ((x, y)) in the other image has.

The two bitmaps are equal in part because they both represent the same scene.

There’s no contradiction here.

[obsrvr524]

Did someone miss this post?

@obsrvr524

@Ecmandu

It’s impossible for this A to equal this A.

So we have two things going on here…

The concept of categories. This implies eternal forms.

If you are talking about Aristotle’s Dialectics principle, A=A, wasn’t he just saying that when speaking (dialectics) you are always to use the same name for the same thing? I don’t think it had anything at all to do with any equality of things.

[WendyDarling]

Magnus wrote

Every representation consists of two crucial parts:

1. a reference to the portion of reality to which it refers

2. a symbol that the representation claims can be used to represent what’s within the referenced portion of reality

Discerning what an abstraction references is the conundrum, where the falsity lies when assuming what it references. On a piece of paper is written the word, dog. In English, dog means many things. Which dog am I referring to? Most, if not all, abstractions cannot point to one specific reference point when they encapsulate multiple possibilities as do most if not all abstractions.

Donald Trump has an orange face. This is not a typical abstraction because it names multiple specifics/details by a specific male name, part of the body, and color, but even with all those details most abstractions lack, is there only one Donald Trump in existence? No.

[Ecmandu]

And magnus, I already delved into this 3 posts back.

Fuck the A=A thing… that’s tangential to the OP.

What the OP is REALLY about is 1+1=2.

The referents in this equality bear no resemblance whatsoever to each other. It’s a visual contradiction.

What I’m saying is that we abstract referents that all know are not equalities on a regular basis, not only visually but with referential language as a whole.

[iambiguous]

@Magnus Anderson

@iambiguous

You made reference to Nietzsche in the OP. And how on earth can one speak of the relationship between abstraction, falsification and the things that Nietzsche wrote and not include human social, political and economic interactions. After all, how are abstractions like God and will to power and supermen not profoundly problematic there?

There is no doubt in my mind that these issues are relevant, and as you say, problematic. The thing is that this thread is narrowly focused on what people mean when they say “Abstraction is falsification”. That’s all. I am not saying that’s more important than what you want to discuss – it may in fact be less important – but this thread right here is meant to be used to discuss only this particular issue and nothing else.

There’s a reason why Internet forums categorize discussions instead of doing it the way modern day social networks do it – stream of posts each of which has its own comment section – the goal being to make it easier for people to read and to participate.

As for Nietzsche, he’s relevant only to the extent that he’s one of those who claim that “Abstraction is falsification”.

Okay, that’s reasonable enough. I’ll cease and desist from posting on this thread. But should anyone here care to focus the beam instead on “abstraction is falsification?” in the world of moral and political value judgments, well, you know where I am.

[Silhouette]

@Magnus Anderson

I read everything Nietzsche wrote except for The Birth of Tragedy and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. But just like in your case, that was a long time ago.

I am pretty sure he believed that truth is a necessary illusion (= a falsity we cannot live without) but I cannot show you how I derived that belief from his writings (it has been a long time.)

Yeah I wouldn’t disagree with that - to the degree that God being dead somewhat requires a new God to take the former one’s place.
Similarly, I’m not close enough to his works anymore to satisfactorily derive that.

Was it intentionally contrarian of you to not read Thus Spoke Zarathustra? Perhaps you avoided it on account of it being his most famous work?
I’m not certain there’s much in there that you won’t know from the rest of his works, but I’d say it’s an easy enough read due to the narrative style.

Am I to assume you didn’t get much from my post then? Since you have read more than I have by the guy.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ecmandu

What the OP is REALLY about is 1+1=2.

The referents in this equality bear no resemblance whatsoever to each other. It’s a visual contradiction.

You are still making two different but compatible claims.

1. “1 + 1” and “2” are two different symbols that have one and the same meaning.

2. “1 + 1” and “2” are two different symbols that do not look exactly the same.

There is no contradiction.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@WendyDarling

Discerning what an abstraction references is the conundrum, where the falsity lies when assuming what it references. On a piece of paper is written the word, dog. In English, dog means many things. Which dog am I referring to? Most, if not all, abstractions cannot point to one specific reference point when they encapsulate multiple possibilities as do most if not all abstractions.

Donald Trump has an orange face. This is not a typical abstraction because it names multiple specifics/details by a specific male name, part of the body, and color, but even with all those details most abstractions lack, is there only one Donald Trump in existence? No.

Light waves (external phenomena) hit your eyes. Your brain immediately picks a language and uses it to internally represent what’s sensed (light waves.) This is the process of abstraction. The result is a two-dimensional picture (an abstraction) that is then presented to your consciousness. You are led to believe that the two-dimensional picture that you see is a perfectly accurate representation of what’s presented to your senses. But if it is true that abstraction is falsification, that belief is actually false i.e. the two-dimensional picture that you see does not actually correspond to what’s presented to your senses. The question is: is that true?

Note that in order to answer this question, we must first agree on what it means for any given representation to correspond to reality.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Silhouette

Yeah I wouldn’t disagree with that - to the degree that God being dead somewhat requires a new God to take the former one’s place.
Similarly, I’m not close enough to his works anymore to satisfactorily derive that.

I’ve derived it in the mean time. (Not sure if you read my recent posts.)

Was it intentionally contrarian of you to not read Thus Spoke Zarathustra? Perhaps you avoided it on account of it being his most famous work?
I’m not certain there’s much in there that you won’t know from the rest of his works, but I’d say it’s an easy enough read due to the narrative style.

Well, I didn’t even know it’s his most popular work. Or maybe I did but I cared so little that I forgot.

I guess I was simply not interested in poetry – his type of poetry, in particular. He’s too poetic for my taste. I’m just not into this entire post-modern “philosophy as art” business.

Am I to assume you didn’t get much from my post then? Since you have read more than I have by the guy.

I am not exactly sure, I have yet to process your post carefully. I’ll let you know when I’m done digesting it.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Magnus says:

"Light waves (external phenomena) hit your eyes. Your brain immediately picks a language and uses it to internally represent what’s sensed (light waves.) This is the process of abstraction. The result is a two-dimensional picture (an abstraction) that is then presented to your consciousness. You are led to believe that the two-dimensional picture that you see is a perfectly accurate representation of what’s presented to your senses. But if it is true that abstraction is falsification, that belief is actually false i.e. the two-dimensional picture that you see does not actually correspond to what’s presented to your senses. The question is: is that true?

Note that in order to answer this question, we must first agree on what it means for any given representation to correspond to reality."

Reality is just such. abstraction from light and waves. That abstraction comes from a recent overlapping subtext, the light hitting the eyeball as well is very recent. Not as recent then michealson and morely and einstein, and certainly changes at least represented perspectives, depths , levels, narcissistic self ideation as objective self.

The narrative of the mechanics of light perception. with all the neurological wiring, is as unreal as can be

So the fact is " nothing is real, nothing to get hung about"

So levels of abstraction are commensurate with levels of evaluation into levels of nominal description within and about normal distribution of value

So abstraction can be falsefied at some level and within certain contexts, while at others it can not

[WendyDarling]

@Magnus Anderson

@WendyDarling

Discerning what an abstraction references is the conundrum, where the falsity lies when assuming what it references. On a piece of paper is written the word, dog. In English, dog means many things. Which dog am I referring to? Most, if not all, abstractions cannot point to one specific reference point when they encapsulate multiple possibilities as do most if not all abstractions.

Donald Trump has an orange face. This is not a typical abstraction because it names multiple specifics/details by a specific male name, part of the body, and color, but even with all those details most abstractions lack, is there only one Donald Trump in existence? No.

Light waves (external phenomena) hit your eyes. Your brain immediately picks a language and uses it to internally represent what’s sensed (light waves.) This is the process of abstraction. The result is a two-dimensional picture (an abstraction) that is then presented to your consciousness. You are led to believe that the two-dimensional picture that you see is a perfectly accurate representation of what’s presented to your senses. But if it is true that abstraction is falsification, that belief is actually false i.e. the two-dimensional picture that you see does not actually correspond to what’s presented to your senses. The question is: is that true?

Note that in order to answer this question, we must first agree on what it means for any given representation to correspond to reality.

Wouldn’t you have to ask about what exists, 2 dimensions or 3 dimensions? Do we perceive in only 2 dimensions?

[Magnus_Anderson]

Don’t you think that we are first presented with a 2D picture and then immediately with a perception of 3D space?

The picture we see is most definitely a 2D one. When you’re talking to someone while looking straight into their eyes, do you see the back of their head?

[Ecmandu]

@Magnus Anderson

@Ecmandu

What the OP is REALLY about is 1+1=2.

The referents in this equality bear no resemblance whatsoever to each other. It’s a visual contradiction.

You are still making two different but compatible claims.

1. “1 + 1” and “2” are two different symbols that have one and the same meaning.

2. “1 + 1” and “2” are two different symbols that do not look exactly the same.

There is no contradiction.

No Magnus ! You’re conflating things here.

The equality of A = A is about perceptual acuity.

The problem of 1+1=2 is 100% abstract.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ecmandu

The equality of A = A is about perceptual acuity.

The problem of 1+1=2 is 100% abstract.

You probably already know this but I’ll state it just in case – I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Let me restate the example I gave to Wendy.

1. Light waves hit your eyes. (“Light waves” are an instance of external phenomena i.e. they are things that exist outside of your brain.)

2. Your brain responds by using visual language to communicate to you what’s sensed. (This is the process of abstraction. It takes what’s sensed – light waves – and turns it into a visual symbol. Note that I’m using the word “language” in a broad way.)

3. The result is a two-dimensional picture that is presented to your consciousness. (Literally, what you see. Colors can be thought of as “visual words” and the two-dimensional picture that you see as “visual sentence”.)

4. You are led to form a belief that what you see (the two-dimensional picture) corresponds to what is sensed (light waves.)

The question is whether your belief formed in #4 is true or false.

Those who claim that “Abstraction is falsification” claim that it is a necessary illusion.