What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[fast]

They are still in a different location and moving in different directions.

They are different. They are in different locations and moving in different directions.

Why do we only count how they are the same and ignore how they are different?

That is a capricious decision.

There is something similar between the particles that make up our hand, yet there are differences too. When we look, we see, and what we see are our fingers, palm, and wrist. We look and we see skin, and when we look closer, we see that there are layers of skin. We name them. We see at the ends of the epidermis layer of our skin over the bones in the digits is the part fartherest from the knuckle and air are our finger nails.

These differences are there, and it's these real differences that drive our classification systems. To say it's arbitrary is to deny a basis of reason anchored in reality behind the lines we draw. The real differences that exist do not vanish when people with minds to detect them vanish.

 

[fast]

No, paintings is an awful example because there is almost an inseparable tie between the painter and the painting.

The objection sent my way from untermensche is that of the impossibility that there can be human independent categories. My position is only of partial agreement. The mental gymnastics of categorizing objects is agency dependent, but if there were no differences already in existence laying in wait of discovery, we wouldn't categorize as we do.

I guess I can only take this as a reaffirmation of your beliefs on this matter. You don't seem to have actual arguments to show.

Same for UM, obviously. Same for all of us, really, I think. So my view is that we just don't know either way.

I accept that the world seems to be made of different categories of things, even at a fundamental level (space, time, energy, probability waves, anything else?) but I also think that maybe this menagerie of things would come down to just one thing and one thing only if we could see reality as it is. And, I doubt very much we could. So, we're stuck. And just repeating again and again our core beliefs in this respect won't shed any more light on the issue.
EB

No argument? I gave a reason for thinking what I do.

 

[untermensche]

They are still in a different location and moving in different directions.

They are different. They are in different locations and moving in different directions.

Why do we only count how they are the same and ignore how they are different?

That is a capricious decision.

There is something similar between the particles that make up our hand, yet there are differences too.

All are different.

All are in a different location and all are moving in a different direction.

They are all different.

To say they are all the same is an abstraction.

It is just pretending they are not all different.

 

[DBT]

Being different doesn't mean non related, stars/stellar objects, planets/planetary objects, etc, which are there regardless of our categorization.

 

[Juma]

The category is arbitrary, its a fucking abstraction.
I think most misses the point here. The model is good. But it is a model and how it works is highly denpending on how our brain works.

If I want to count people as they enter the building, I'm probably not going to start my count at some arbitrary number, like 17 or 43. I could start at 17 and count to 50 while you start at 43 and count to 76. We can do our math (last - start + 1) and arrive at the same answer.

When we choose our mental categories of the non-mental objects, we don't just arbitrarily pick points of matter we observe to serve as divisional points between category separations. The outside world highly influences our inner world. If it didn't, maybe then our divisions would be arbitrary.

Who said that we are able to choose the category separations? That was not what I wrote.
The evolution and thus or brain have created the framework wherein the categories work.

 

[Juma]

What we call a category begins with the reality of one object having different properties to another object. The distinctions exist regardless of us.

No. The distinction is a predicate in our mind/brain.
That predicate is not ”out there”.

 

[Juma]

Being different doesn't mean non related, stars/stellar objects, planets/planetary objects, etc, which are there regardless of our categorization.

The origin of our sense-data is out there. Noone denies that. The model your brain/you make from that is in your brain only.
The data/properties/algorithms needed for maintaining that model is in your brain, not ”out there”.
”Object” (a basic category that just deliminates out some feature) is part of that model.

 

[DBT]

What we call a category begins with the reality of one object having different properties to another object. The distinctions exist regardless of us.

No. The distinction is a predicate in our mind/brain.
That predicate is not ”out there”.

How can there not be? Stars are not planets which are not moons which are not comets....we merely obverse the distinctions that are there to be observed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is an interesting thread. It is. I would categorise this thread as interesting. And threads clearly can be not interesting at all. So kudos to all. Bravo!

Still, I can't help making a distinction between contributors here. I would say there is the category of people who regard categories as arbitrary constructs of the human brain (or mind), and then there is this very distinct category of people who see our categories as reflecting somehow the real world, and hence not entirely arbitrary.

Me, I'm clearly in a third category. I think we just don't know whether our categories are entirely made up or not at all. You all seem to know and I ask myself, how would you? So, you all belong to the blessed ('bénit' in French) category of those people who think they know, and you are all very categorical here, whereas I accept gleefully I don't. I'm in the dark night of ignorance. Benighted. And not bénit at all.

Still, it's also clear that you're all making a show of it. Your positions are not so far apart as you pretend them to be. Even UM in fact, who is in a category of his own, i.e. the extremity of a continuum. So it's all a bit faked. You're all overegging the pudding to some extent, although some are really making a show of it while others are more balanced. Probably a matter of temperament, thought, nothing to be too worried about. Just maybe, you should watch your blood pressure.

So, this thread is, in effect, an exploration of the very human concept of category and of the difficult and more general question of whether our concepts refer to anything in the physical world. Clearly, an object is just an instance of the things we see as part of a category. It seems to me that the twin concepts of object and category will stand together or fall together. But if reality is independent of us, then, who knows, maybe there are object-like things.

But this debate is not finished. Not yet. There's a semantic battle to be fought and that's no plaisanterie for believers united.
EB

 

[DBT]

Being different doesn't mean non related, stars/stellar objects, planets/planetary objects, etc, which are there regardless of our categorization.

The origin of our sense-data is out there. Noone denies that. The model your brain/you make from that is in your brain only.
The data/properties/algorithms needed for maintaining that model is in your brain, not ”out there”.
”Object” (a basic category that just deliminates out some feature) is part of that model.

I am not denying that our experience of the world and self is generated by the brain in the form of conscious mind, of course it is, but the distinctions between external objects and events still come from information input from the external world via the senses, upon which our internal model is constructed...

 

[Juma]

The origin of our sense-data is out there. Noone denies that. The model your brain/you make from that is in your brain only.
The data/properties/algorithms needed for maintaining that model is in your brain, not ”out there”.
”Object” (a basic category that just deliminates out some feature) is part of that model.

I am not denying that our experience of the world and self is generated by the brain in the form of conscious mind, of course it is, but the distinctions between external objects and events still come from information input from the external world via the senses, upon which our internal model is constructed...

Then we are really close in this.

But a ”distinction” is a ”measure” and a measure require a definition of that measure. That definition is within ourselves, our body, our brain.


Think of it like this: how would you make an ai that made the same distinction? Then you realize that the definition of objects lies in the measurement and only implicit in the input data.

But the important point sti

 

[Juma]

This is an interesting thread. It is. I would categorise this thread as interesting. And threads clearly can be not interesting at all. So kudos to all. Bravo!

Still, I can't help making a distinction between contributors here. I would say there is the category of people who regard categories as arbitrary constructs of the human brain (or mind), and then there is this very distinct category of people who see our categories as reflecting somehow the real world, and hence not entirely arbitrary.

Me, I'm clearly in a third category. I think we just don't know whether our categories are entirely made up or not at all. You all seem to know and I ask myself, how would you? So, you all belong to the blessed ('bénit' in French) category of those people who think they know, and you are all very categorical here, whereas I accept gleefully I don't. I'm in the dark night of ignorance. Benighted. And not bénit at all.

Still, it's also clear that you're all making a show of it. Your positions are not so far apart as you pretend them to be. Even UM in fact, who is in a category of his own, i.e. the extremity of a continuum. So it's all a bit faked. You're all overegging the pudding to some extent, although some are really making a show of it while others are more balanced. Probably a matter of temperament, thought, nothing to be too worried about. Just maybe, you should watch your blood pressure.

So, this thread is, in effect, an exploration of the very human concept of category and of the difficult and more general question of whether our concepts refer to anything in the physical world. Clearly, an object is just an instance of the things we see as part of a category. It seems to me that the twin concepts of object and category will stand together or fall together. But if reality is independent of us, then, who knows, maybe there are object-like things.

But this debate is not finished. Not yet. There's a semantic battle to be fought and that's no plaisanterie for believers united.
EB

About the arbitraryness: i dont think anyone really says that the categories are completely arbitrary relative the sensed input. That would be ridiculous. I rather believe unter means arbitrary in the meaning ”not directly caused by”. We are directly hurt by a wooden beam in our eye but arbitrarlly so by one in our neighbours eye.

 

[DBT]

I am not denying that our experience of the world and self is generated by the brain in the form of conscious mind, of course it is, but the distinctions between external objects and events still come from information input from the external world via the senses, upon which our internal model is constructed...

Then we are really close in this.

But a ”distinction” is a ”measure” and a measure require a definition of that measure. That definition is within ourselves, our body, our brain.


Think of it like this: how would you make an ai that made the same distinction? Then you realize that the definition of objects lies in the measurement and only implicit in the input data.

But the important point sti

It seems to me that whatever it is that forms a virtual representation of the external world, be it Human, AI or other species of animal, based on information acquired from the external world, it is merely modeling information that already exists and exists independently of all modeling.

 

[untermensche]

Being different doesn't mean non related, stars/stellar objects, planets/planetary objects, etc, which are there regardless of our categorization.

Being different means to say they are in the same category is a process of arbitrarily ignoring the differences and only focusing on the similarities.

It is a mental process, not anything that could happen without a mind.

Without a mind, without abstraction, all is different, all is unique, all is singular.

 

[George S]

Being different doesn't mean non related, stars/stellar objects, planets/planetary objects, etc, which are there regardless of our categorization.

Being different means to say they are in the same category is a process of arbitrarily ignoring the differences and only focusing on the similarities.

It is a mental process, not anything that could happen without a mind.

Without a mind, without abstraction, all is different, all is unique, all is singular.

To categorize can be arbitrary. One of the most well studied areas is color categorization. The same input frequency may well be grouped with other frequencies and given a single name in one culture while another makes a distinction. The color categories are arbitrary to a degree.

You put some things in the "abstract" category. Without a mind to make up a category and give it a name categories do not exist, you claim. So your category of "abstraction" is arbitrary to you. Since the others of us agree what "abstract" means and use that meaning to categorize things a certain way, I wonder what your arbitrary notion of "abstract" means to you. Should you claim it is the same as mine, then that is a natural category and not arbitrary at all.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Being different means to say they are in the same category is a process of arbitrarily ignoring the differences and only focusing on the similarities.

It is a mental process, not anything that could happen without a mind.

Without a mind, without abstraction, all is different, all is unique, all is singular.

To categorize can be arbitrary. One of the most well studied areas is color categorization. The same input frequency may well be grouped with other frequencies and given a single name in one culture while another makes a distinction. The color categories are arbitrary to a degree.

You put some things in the "abstract" category. Without a mind to make up a category and give it a name categories do not exist, you claim. So your category of "abstraction" is arbitrary to you. Since the others of us agree what "abstract" means and use that meaning to categorize things a certain way, I wonder what your arbitrary notion of "abstract" means to you. Should you claim it is the same as mine, then that is a natural category and not arbitrary at all.

Hey! Woah! This-Is-Really-Good!

I don't want you to blush too much here but I'm really impressed.

Come to think of it, you know, could UM cogently refrain from accepting there are two categories of statements: true statements and false statements? How would that possibly go I wonder?

Ok, let's wait for it.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Being different means to say they are in the same category is a process of arbitrarily ignoring the differences and only focusing on the similarities.

It is a mental process, not anything that could happen without a mind.

Without a mind, without abstraction, all is different, all is unique, all is singular.

To categorize can be arbitrary. One of the most well studied areas is color categorization. The same input frequency may well be grouped with other frequencies and given a single name in one culture while another makes a distinction. The color categories are arbitrary to a degree.

You put some things in the "abstract" category. Without a mind to make up a category and give it a name categories do not exist, you claim. So your category of "abstraction" is arbitrary to you. Since the others of us agree what "abstract" means and use that meaning to categorize things a certain way, I wonder what your arbitrary notion of "abstract" means to you. Should you claim it is the same as mine, then that is a natural category and not arbitrary at all.

Color itself is entirely capricious.

There are no colors out on the world. They only exist as a capricious subjective experience.

 

[untermensche]

To categorize can be arbitrary. One of the most well studied areas is color categorization. The same input frequency may well be grouped with other frequencies and given a single name in one culture while another makes a distinction. The color categories are arbitrary to a degree.

You put some things in the "abstract" category. Without a mind to make up a category and give it a name categories do not exist, you claim. So your category of "abstraction" is arbitrary to you. Since the others of us agree what "abstract" means and use that meaning to categorize things a certain way, I wonder what your arbitrary notion of "abstract" means to you. Should you claim it is the same as mine, then that is a natural category and not arbitrary at all.

Hey! Woah! This-Is-Really-Good!

I don't want you to blush too much here but I'm really impressed.

Come to think of it, you know, could UM cogently refrain from accepting there are two categories of statements: true statements and false statements? How would that possibly go I wonder?

Ok, let's wait for it.
EB

Without minds or language you don't have any statements.

 

[Kharakov]

Mass/energy gradients in nature (spacetime) are artificial and arbitrary? That's interesting. From observation, they appear to arise naturally. I'm glad you're here to educate everyone and take comments out of context.

The category is arbitrary, its a fucking abstraction.
I think most misses the point here. The model is good. But it is a model and how it works is highly denpending on how our brain works.

Or doesn't. You ever feel like your brain is plotting against you?

 

[fromderinside]

Color itself is entirely capricious.

There are no colors out on the world. They only exist as a capricious subjective experience.

Why then do certain light frequencies combined almost always yield the same perception. so much so that there is an entire theory describing how this phenomena works with categories of color.