Abstraction in its main sense is a conceptual process by which general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific examples, literal (“real” or “concrete”) signifiers, first principles, or other methods. “An abstraction” is the product of this process—a concept that acts as a super-categorical noun for all subordinate concepts, and connects any related concepts as a group, field, or category.[1]
Conceptual abstractions may be formed by filtering the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, selecting only the aspects which are relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball selects only the information on general ball attributes and behavior, eliminating the other characteristics of that particular ball.[1] In a type–token distinction, a type (e.g., a ‘ball’) is more abstract than its tokens (e.g., ‘that leather soccer ball’).
However, there seems to be another process that is opposite of abstraction. In so much as in the following link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete, whereas tennis is an abstract concept - a tennis match is concrete. Yes a tennis match is observable, however I would contend that a tennis match is a culmination of concrete objects that result in an concept that is similar to an abstract entity, one that which a correct term is lost on me, in so much as I am not aware of a term. It seems it is like an abstract entity, however it is construction occurs through multiple concrete things - as a tennis match consists of two, or four people playing a game with the rules known as tennis, in which each have tennis rackets and hit a ball back and forth over a net in what is known as a tennis court. What the result of all these concrete things (and the rules - an abstract thing) - are constructed in our mind to be perceived as a tennis match - yet how is it so much a concrete entity rather than an abstract entity that has resulted from the opposite means of abstraction? Is anyone where of a term for what I am referring to, or can we consider a tennis match an abstract concept and declare wikipedia incorrect in that a tennis match is concrete and tennis is abstract. I would contest that a match is merely less abstract than a tennis game. Perhaps this is madness to some but I have an ontological understanding of conceptualization - and conceptualization of a tennis match is categorized as abstract in my ontology - based on the conceptualization that is not a physical thing in so much as it is an abstract entity formed from conceptualizing physical things - and one abstract thing - “the rules”.
Is conceptualization good enough for this process of constructing the understanding of perceiving a tennis match, and the tennis match itself? Or should a tennis match be conceptualized as something concrete, like an apple is? Or a tennis ball is?
Anything that is observable is concrete and anything that is not observable is conceptual
So therefore watching a game of tennis is concrete whilst thinking about it is conceptual
Yes I agree. I suppose observable among all or some, or one of the senses is all the difference. Yet we don’t really consider our perception of reality a sense. I suppose everything can melt away through subjective categorization, time, clocks, things. Can’t we see everything as abstract if we will it? I suppose a car is the same as a tennis match in that a car is made up of physical components, and I suppose we can find an abstract component maybe somewhere if we look hard enough, maybe not. So abstraction and conceptualization are very related.
Conceptualization leads to the abstract or the concrete -
But the Frame of reference seems to have a say in the matter. Is the color red concrete? If so, it only exists in our minds, mind you. But we can observe it.
So if its not the same for all, what’s so “concrete” about being concrete? Observable - based on our frame of reference. Yet to a color blind person, who can’t see blue, perhaps, is it abstract to a color blind person? No not really… So what is the categorization really… is it concrete if it is able to be measured? Well, mass is measurable… but is abstract. What about UV, we can’t observe UV light, yet it would be concrete as well, yes? No?
Who or what really is the arbiter of the abstract and concrete?
While we can say the opposite of concrete is abstract, but what is the opposite of abstraction in the conceptual realm? Conceptualization can lead to the abstract and the concrete, so shouldn’t we say that conceptualization is the opposite of abstraction? Yet they are using the same mental process of conceptualization. Perhaps some new terms need to be coined. Do you follow me, or are you lost, reader?
The act of observing something and then having an abstract thought pertaining to it may appear
to be entirely separate. But they are merely two different points on the consciousness spectrum
When referring to the general category, it is an abstraction. When referring to a particular, it is a concrete sample. It doesn’t matter what kind of thing is being referred to as long as it is reasonably defined.
And although all abstractions are concepts, not all concepts are abstraction.
The opposite of a generalization is a specialization or particular. Both can be conceptual. How a concept comes about hasn’t anything to do with whether it is opposite to anything.
The process of abstracting and the process of conceptualizing are very similar. But conceptualizing doesn’t require a set of particulars from which to abstract a general concept. In both cases one is creating a category, so they can’t be said to be opposite.
I agree,
I think there ought to be a term for the process of conceptualizing that does require a set of particulars from which to conceptualize (note I differ here in your sentiment as not stating “abstract”) a concrete concept.
I will coin the term, construction, with a new sense of the word. All hail my astuteness on the matter by recognizing my term that shares the same symbol as another meaning, but does not share the same meaning.
Or should it be a phrase, perhaps… “perceptual construction”
“When referring to the general category, it is an abstraction. When referring to a particular, it is a concrete sample”
So to debunk that, one must simply provide a “particular” that isn’t concrete.
A tennis match (general), or the tennis match? (particular)
What about just, “tennis match”
Energy from matter is concrete, but energy in general is abstract
Consciousness - concrete or abstract? The brain seems concrete - consciousness seems abstract, but my consciousness seems more specific - does that make it concrete?
Just “tennis match” is nonspecific and indeterminate. You don’t know what it is.
Which energy from which matter is concrete. The general concept of energy coming from matter is abstract.
Are you referring to someone particular’s consciousness (concrete) or consciousness in general (abstract)?
I think that you are conflating “vaguely defined” or “difficult to point at” with “abstract”. How well it is defined doesn’t change whether it is an abstraction or a concrete sample.
Your particular consciousness is “concrete” (although a bit ephemeral).
No I’m definitely not conflating “vaguely defined” or “difficult to point at” with abstract.
Consciousness is an abstract thing. It is a product of the brain. That’s how I see it, it was conceptualized. A brain was not conceptualized, a brain exists regardless of conceptualization. I see it as such:
Consciousness is to the brain as strength is to our muscles. Consciousness is an abstraction just as strength is, to describe characteristics of the physical (muscle, brain) that lead to an abstract entity (mind, strength). A culmination of all our sensory organs - sight, touch, taste, smell, coupled with the processing and remembering power of the brain leads to our perception. Yes the mind is far more complex than the abstraction of strength, but so what? It is based in the brain, without the brain, no consciousness. Without the muscle, no physical strength. Consciousnes isn’t something to be poked or prodded. We can’t observe it. We can observe the brain…
Consciousness is a process (of remote recognition). A specific consciousness process is a “concrete sample”. Being a process does not make it abstract.
Conceptualizing has nothing to do with whether something is objectively existent. Both the brain and its processes are objectively existent. Both are conceptualized by those who define and study them.
No. Strength is a measurement, not an object or process. All measurements are concepts whether abstracted or particular.
Well why not? A process is an abstraction, until it becomes a concrete process in action?
Right but simply because it exists means its concrete? Because you state it is a specific example. Well, I think that applies to the English language as far as being a concrete or abstract noun, but is that the same onto-logically?
Well, by my analogy strength is a measurement the end result of our muscle’s product and consciousness is the product of a physical brain. How does being a measurement matter? Is not what consciousness is perceived by a measuring of sorts, of ones perception and frame of reference?
All existence is a process(s). If being a process makes it abstract, then all existence is abstract … but an abstraction from what???
“Concrete” merely means a process that can be individually identified, “pointed at”. When you point at the brain, you are also pointing at the process of that brain.
If what you are referring to is a particular existence, then yes, it is a “concrete sample”.
An ontology is merely a descriptive construct. There can be many varieties of ontologies that all refer to the same reality. The trick is to not confuse them together.
That would be its motion (or “process”).
And that as well.
A measurement is a comparison. Comparisons do not have physical existence. Measurements are merely conceptual tools or ideas within the mind (within the brain’s processing). But if you are speaking of a particular measurement, that would be a concrete example of a measurement. If you are speaking of the general idea of length, that would be an abstract idea.
If all existence is a process then why qualify an abstract concept as abstract because it is a process? So I’m seeing amiguity in what is determined to be concrete and abstract. Are you referring to rules of grammar? I do not wish to get into rules of grammar for this, I think those are two separate things. We have the metaphysics of what is abstract and concrete, then we have grammatical rules of what is abstract and concrete. I don’t think we should confuse the two.
An average and an abstraction are similar in several ways. They both require a group from which they are derived. They both tell something of the group. Both are imaginary entities, having no physical existence. And even though each is derived by a process, neither is the process itself, but rather merely the resulting concept or idea.
An abstraction refers to a simplified general theme, void of details. The abstract concept for a group of items might be a circle because that is one thing that all of the group items had in common. It might not be referring to a circle of any particular size. It might not be referring to a perfect circle, but merely the general idea of a physical circularity. Or the abstract idea might be the general idea of a story to thesis, void of all of the minutia and detail.
A concrete item or sample is not an average or general concept concerning a group. A concrete item is one particular item as an exact example and thus inclusive of its details. The concrete item might or might not be a physical item.
Realize that an ontology, being a conceptual description, IS the foundation of a language. A proper ontology defines all of the words, concepts, and the relations between them. There can be no language without an inherent ontology and vsvrsa.
The only distinction between a language and an ontology is merely sentence structure, the manner in which the concepts are presented for sake of communication of portions of an ontology. A language includes the order of words so as to convey more precise intention, whereas an ontology is merely the collection of defined concepts and how they relate to each other. A language must have the defined concepts from an ontology, but an ontology does not have to have sentence structure or other communication nuances used in relaying the understanding.
We have been talking about the concepts of “abstract”, “concrete”, and “concept”. Those are ontological entities within the language, concepts within an understanding of reality. They have nothing to do with sentence structure or the proper order of wording, aka “grammar”.
I think you’re getting into rules of grammar as opposed to the ontology of abstractions, concepts, things when you consider “A concrete item or sample is not an average or general concept concerning a group, a concrete items is one particular item as an exact example and thus inclusive of the details.”
Which is not what this discussion is about. My point for this was not a discussion on grammar nor do I want to discuss grammar in this thread. I don’t care about a word being an abstract or concrete noun, I am talking about the greater ontological aspect of the noun and is it an abstraction.
Interesting claim here - what language, English? If you’re going to base the ontology of concepts based on how their word is classified, you are not doing justice to ontology, you are assuming that grammar is built on ontology. I would say that it is often not. Linguistics shows us a separation of ontology and grammar all the time. Even what words mean can be nonsensical upon proper ontological reflection. Our Language, English, is beyond using ontology- it uses its own rules. Makes up its own rules. Changes its own rules. It’s far more dynamic than proper ontology could be, or at least, should be.
I disagree wholeheartedly and am now very disappointed in you James. I’m sorry we have to end this conversation this way. I had hope, after all these disagreements we have had in the past, to actually go somewhere else and put that behind us. Unfortunately, we just have come to another disagreement. We should end this conversation… because I don’t see how we’re reconcilable. On most deep things, we are not. Some others we are. But… you’ve not gone far enough down the ontological rabbit hole, as far as I’m concerned… to be candid.