As far as I understand, there are two main types of cognitive faculties i.e. methods of gaining knowledge and understanding. The first is perception, i.e. evidence provided by the senses. The second is conceptualization, i.e. forming, processing and integrating ideas about the evidence provided. I guess instinct can be counted as a third type, but I'm not sure, since it seems to be a form of automatic knowledge with no process involved. Rather than being a method of gaining knowledge, instinct seems to be knowledge coded in genes.
Now, as far as perception goes, things are pretty simple. it consists of becoming aware of something that exists. By definition you cannot perceive something that is not there. So, if it seems like you are perceiving something that is not there, it is not actually perception but either projection, illusion or deception.
Conceptualization is forming ideas about the percepts. Abstraction, a higher form of conceptualization, is forming ideas about those ideas and so on. The higher up along the ladder of conceptualization you go, the more complex it all becomes.
Here's where things get interesting.
First of all, I consider that only the concepts that are validly rooted in relevant percepts can be classified as true. That is, not just true given certain premises which may or may not be true themselves, but true as in corresponding to reality. They would not be absolutely true as they would change as the underlying reality changes. They would be contextually true, with reality providing the context.
Any other concept built upon that concept would similarly be true. The two conditions to be satisfied would be that it should ultimately be rooted in actual perception (not apparent perception) and it should be rationally derivable.
Now, here are a few observations and/or opinions regarding the process of conceptualization.
1. It would appear to me that humans are unique in their ability to conceptualize. This is what, in my opinion, sets us apart from other animals and computers. While both can get percepts i.e. get sensory inputs and store them (conditioning in case of animals), any conceptualization isn't possible. I could be wrong on this.
2. A lot of false beliefs arise from misapplication of abstract concepts or from incomplete integration. For example, by observation we can come up with the concept of "causation". Underlying it is dependence on time. Misapplying it would give us the "first cause" argument where it would not be valid.
3. The concepts we have integrated often form the stick by which we measure any future percepts. I spoke earlier of actual and apparent perceptions. The human perceptive facility is not perfect, nor is it expected to be. You may be doing actual perception (i.e. what you see is actually there) or you may be doing apparent perception (i.e. what you think you see is not there).
However, reality itself would be self-consistent. By its nature, contradictions would not exists within it. So, if what you perceive now seems to be contradicting an earlier established concept, then either your perception is false or the concept is. In case of the latter, either the underlying percepts are false or the process of conceptualization is fallacious. Which is why the process needs to be conscious and rational, as far as possible, to avoid believing in contradictory concepts.
4. This would be one of the points I wan to clarify. What would be the metaphysical nature of concepts?
They do not have a physical existence. They 'exist' simply as a part of consciousness. Can they be said to actually exist?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about some sort of platonic reality where all concepts are real.
As far as I know, all concepts are products of consciousness and have no physical existence. The concept of language, without a mind to understand it, would simply be ink on paper. The laws of physics are concepts created to identify and describe the working of reality, but without scientists to create them, they would not exist, even if reality would continue to work as always. The entire field of mathematics is an abstraction and would not exists if not for human consciousness.
But, if you notice something here, I kept using the words 'be', 'created', 'exist' - words which, as I understand, are inexorably tied to physical existence and yet I keep applying them to things that have no physical existence. That's because I know of no other more appropriate words here. Is this simply a limitation of language?
5. Finally - and as an extension of the last point - what does the dependence on consciousness say about objectivity of concepts? Assuming, for a moment, that 'existence' is applicable to concepts.
Simply put - a concept has been completely derived from an actual precept, i.e. one that represents reality. Something is considered objective if it exists independently of consciousness. However, here consciousness plays the critical role creating the concept.
The actual nature of consciousness is immaterial for a true concept, i.e. if a concept is based on a real precept and is validly derived, then it doesn't matter who does the process of creation, it would be the same. Also, the same consciousness the not required for the continued existence of the same concept. Newton's laws still exist even though Newton is long dead. This is because the root of those concepts is reality.
To draw an analogy - consciousness is the ground required for developing and carrying the plants of concepts. So, while these plants are entities separate and distinct from the ground, they cannot exist without it. So, do plants exist independently of the ground?
Do concepts exists independently of consciousness? That should answer whether they are objective or not. (Ofcourse, the other option is that my definition of "objective" is inapplicable here. Rather than "independent of" it should be "not a derivative of").
That's all for now.
Genkaus
Now, as far as perception goes, things are pretty simple. it consists of becoming aware of something that exists. By definition you cannot perceive something that is not there. So, if it seems like you are perceiving something that is not there, it is not actually perception but either projection, illusion or deception.
Conceptualization is forming ideas about the percepts. Abstraction, a higher form of conceptualization, is forming ideas about those ideas and so on. The higher up along the ladder of conceptualization you go, the more complex it all becomes.
Here's where things get interesting.
First of all, I consider that only the concepts that are validly rooted in relevant percepts can be classified as true. That is, not just true given certain premises which may or may not be true themselves, but true as in corresponding to reality. They would not be absolutely true as they would change as the underlying reality changes. They would be contextually true, with reality providing the context.
Any other concept built upon that concept would similarly be true. The two conditions to be satisfied would be that it should ultimately be rooted in actual perception (not apparent perception) and it should be rationally derivable.
Now, here are a few observations and/or opinions regarding the process of conceptualization.
1. It would appear to me that humans are unique in their ability to conceptualize. This is what, in my opinion, sets us apart from other animals and computers. While both can get percepts i.e. get sensory inputs and store them (conditioning in case of animals), any conceptualization isn't possible. I could be wrong on this.
2. A lot of false beliefs arise from misapplication of abstract concepts or from incomplete integration. For example, by observation we can come up with the concept of "causation". Underlying it is dependence on time. Misapplying it would give us the "first cause" argument where it would not be valid.
3. The concepts we have integrated often form the stick by which we measure any future percepts. I spoke earlier of actual and apparent perceptions. The human perceptive facility is not perfect, nor is it expected to be. You may be doing actual perception (i.e. what you see is actually there) or you may be doing apparent perception (i.e. what you think you see is not there).
However, reality itself would be self-consistent. By its nature, contradictions would not exists within it. So, if what you perceive now seems to be contradicting an earlier established concept, then either your perception is false or the concept is. In case of the latter, either the underlying percepts are false or the process of conceptualization is fallacious. Which is why the process needs to be conscious and rational, as far as possible, to avoid believing in contradictory concepts.
4. This would be one of the points I wan to clarify. What would be the metaphysical nature of concepts?
They do not have a physical existence. They 'exist' simply as a part of consciousness. Can they be said to actually exist?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about some sort of platonic reality where all concepts are real.
As far as I know, all concepts are products of consciousness and have no physical existence. The concept of language, without a mind to understand it, would simply be ink on paper. The laws of physics are concepts created to identify and describe the working of reality, but without scientists to create them, they would not exist, even if reality would continue to work as always. The entire field of mathematics is an abstraction and would not exists if not for human consciousness.
But, if you notice something here, I kept using the words 'be', 'created', 'exist' - words which, as I understand, are inexorably tied to physical existence and yet I keep applying them to things that have no physical existence. That's because I know of no other more appropriate words here. Is this simply a limitation of language?
5. Finally - and as an extension of the last point - what does the dependence on consciousness say about objectivity of concepts? Assuming, for a moment, that 'existence' is applicable to concepts.
Simply put - a concept has been completely derived from an actual precept, i.e. one that represents reality. Something is considered objective if it exists independently of consciousness. However, here consciousness plays the critical role creating the concept.
The actual nature of consciousness is immaterial for a true concept, i.e. if a concept is based on a real precept and is validly derived, then it doesn't matter who does the process of creation, it would be the same. Also, the same consciousness the not required for the continued existence of the same concept. Newton's laws still exist even though Newton is long dead. This is because the root of those concepts is reality.
To draw an analogy - consciousness is the ground required for developing and carrying the plants of concepts. So, while these plants are entities separate and distinct from the ground, they cannot exist without it. So, do plants exist independently of the ground?
Do concepts exists independently of consciousness? That should answer whether they are objective or not. (Ofcourse, the other option is that my definition of "objective" is inapplicable here. Rather than "independent of" it should be "not a derivative of").
That's all for now.
Genkaus
![[Image: twQdxWW.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FtwQdxWW.jpg)
