Theory of Abstract Relativity

[Bossness]

Not so long ago, I posted a thread about ideas you thought you independently originated that someone else already came up with, and the comments had me thinking; are all abstract ideas related? Sounds plausible when you think about universal concepts that we all acknowledge such as freedom, truth, happiness, hate, and even after-life. It makes me wonder, when humans first invented languages, how did they come up with words for abstract concepts such as love, hate, frustration, mischief? It must have been a lot easier to produce words for concrete items like stick or fire (all you had to do is point at the object and label it), but what about the things that couldn't be perceived by the 5 sense? How were they originally identified and labeled?

My answer: There has to be an innate connection of ideas in all of us, if not then how would you explain how we all know what justice is, or how ideas you came up with on your own already exists and were originated by someone whom you probably had no influence on? This theory makes me wonder if just like our "original" ideas, maybe our dreams are duplicates and were dreamt of by a different party. Or even more bizarre, if our dreams are connected whereby you and someone on the other side of town had the same exact dream and saw each other! What if imagination is a part of reality that we don't acknowledge? What if just like we supposedly have parallel universes, we also have parallel realities and dreams and imagination lead us to these realities?

And lastly, if these questions seem absurd, consider this last one: Did you already think of these questions and if so, does that validate the theory?

[ACow]

I don't think we all know or agree what justice is. Or Freedom. Or Truth. Or Happiness. Or Hate.

[Bossness]

Actually, I'm pretty sure we all know and agree on the general concepts of justice, freedom, hate, happiness and truth, it's the specificity of them that we disagree on (ie freedom of speech, truth about UFOs etc).

[puzzled-observer]

We point to each others facial expressions and body language. Because they're relatively universal, emotions we feel like love, hate etc can be associated with the facial expressions, and with the general behaviors that accompany them.

For many of these it's a matter of building up a large array of examples where the word applies and compiling a concept that matches how the terms are used. Concepts of justice and freedom have changed over time. This fact flies in the face of your hypothesis.

[Bossness]

We point to each others facial expressions and body language. Because they're relatively universal, emotions we feel like love, hate etc can be associated with the facial expressions, and with the general behaviors that accompany them.

For many of these it's a matter of building up a large array of examples where the word applies and compiling a concept that matches how the terms are used. Concepts of justice and freedom have changed over time. This fact flies in the face of your hypothesis.

How and when did the concept/definiton of justice and freedom changed?

[Bossness]

*change

[stuck]

It'd be worth looking up the etymology of some of those words.

I just looked up mischief. It comes from "mis-achieve". Achieve comes from the french "venir a chef" meaning to come to a head, end, chief. It originally meant to be misfortunate, but then grew to encompass the meaning of deliberately making trouble.

[Qfwfq]

Why, I'll wager a pound of denarius that justice is rooted in justinian!

[puzzled-observer]

How and when did the concept/definiton of justice and freedom changed?

Read the bible for an example of how justice changed. For freedom, look at freedom of speech. For americans (many of them, anyway), freedom of speech and expression is strongly linked with the concept of freedom. This wasn't always the case, and even today is not the case for people from other cultures.

[Grimssdur]

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to loose.

[Bossness]

Read the bible for an example of how justice changed. For freedom, look at freedom of speech. For americans (many of them, anyway), freedom of speech and expression is strongly linked with the concept of freedom. This wasn't always the case, and even today is not the case for people from other cultures.

It seems as though you agree with me without realizing it. My first comment on this thread alludes to yours; the fact that generally we have an innate understanding of these abstract concepts, it's when we get specific that we get misunderstood (specifics like freedom of speech, as in a specific type of freedom). Overall, we know freedom is the opposite of slavery, the capability to perform unrestricted actions, without boundaries. This broad concept is what I'm talking about. The same concept that shapes sayings like "free as a bird." This notion has always existed, even before we created a word for it. Keep in mind definition of words change, not the concepts.

[stuck]

This notion has always existed, even before we created a word for it. Keep in mind definition of words change, not the concepts.

How the hell do you know that? Words are created all the time, along with concepts.

[proverbs6:13]

"Free as a bird" comes from the 19th century British justice system. At the time canaries were used in mining operations, to detect gas build up. When the canary detected anything it would begin singing and thereby alert the miners. Inmates who were incarcerated but offered to give evidence against other criminals were said to be "Canaries doing time", a rhyming pun on "Canary in a Coal Mine", since, they metaphorically alerted police to potential suspects. Over time this morphed into "Sing like a Canary" which is still used today. The term "Free as a bird" then meant one who had "sang like a canary" in order to gain release and was derogatory. At the turn of century it meant someone who felt no responsibility and was again derogatory. However, during the 60's the idea of freedom from responsibility was seen as positive so it came to have positive connotations.

[Bossness]

How the hell do you know that? Words are created all the time, along with concepts.

Concepts come first. Before we made a word for "happiness" we already experienced it. Babies get happy, but their feelings didn't come ALONG with words to describe them.

[stuck]

Concepts come first. Before we made a word for "happiness" we already experienced it. Babies get happy, but their feelings didn't come ALONG with words to describe them.

You're oversimplifying by lumping all abstract words into your thesis. Some concepts predate language, some do not.

[Bossness]

"Free as a bird" comes from the 19th century British justice system. At the time canaries were used in mining operations, to detect gas build up. When the canary detected anything it would begin singing and thereby alert the miners. Inmates who were incarcerated but offered to give evidence against other criminals were said to be "Canaries doing time", a rhyming pun on "Canary in a Coal Mine", since, they metaphorically alerted police to potential suspects. Over time this morphed into "Sing like a Canary" which is still used today. The term "Free as a bird" then meant one who had "sang like a canary" in order to gain release and was derogatory. At the turn of century it meant someone who felt no responsibility and was again derogatory. However, during the 60's the idea of freedom from responsibility was seen as positive so it came to have positive connotations.

Hmm..Didn't know that. But just like this example of a saying changing it's connotation for the better, similar can be said for the word "gay", only this time, for the worse. Gay was originally a synonym for happy, but now it's mainly used to describe something not approved of (ie "I'm spending my Xmas break on this stupid project, how gay is that") or homosexuality

[Bossness]

You're oversimplifying by lumping all abstract words into your thesis. Some concepts predate language, some do not.

Examples, per favore?

[stuck]

Examples, per favore?

Sublime
Romance
Courtesy
Irony

[Bossness]

Sublime
Romance
Courtesy
Irony

I don't think you and I are on the same page here. You see, in order to form a word you need a concept behind it. I can't make up a word and then later on find something to define it by, instead it's vice versa.

[stuck]

I don't think you and I are on the same page here. You see, in order to form a word you need a concept behind it. I can't make up a word and then later on find something to define it by, instead it's vice versa.

Sure, but there's two types of concepts- the ones that predate language, and the ones that form within cultures, subject to the shading of language.

Look at courtesy- it comes from "curtsy", which was a physical act. It's a physical act turned into an abstract concept, encompassing a type of societal subservience that had not previously existed. It's interesting stuff- the evolution of culture.

[Bossness]

Sure, but there's two types of concepts- the ones that predate language, and the ones that form within cultures, subject to the shading of language.

Look at courtesy- it comes from "curtsy", which was a physical act. It's a physical act turned into an abstract concept, encompassing a type of societal subservience that had not previously existed. It's interesting stuff- the evolution of culture.

Ah, I see, well I haven't taken anthropology so excuse me if I sound naive. But my overall theory is that there is a universe of abstractness that we live in subconsciously that's similar to our concrete world. The only difference is that this abstract universe isn't perceived with our 5 sense. And just like our concrete world where we have objects and forces we can all identify with (stone, seas, gravity etc), our abstract world is filled with ideas we all relate to. Whether or not the word changes, the ideas stick (if I change the word "black" and replace it with "hylt," no matter what you call it, you will always recognize it )

[stuck]

Yeah, I understand your theory. I believe I just put a massive hole in it using nothing more than a quick trip to google. I am saying your theory is inadequate.

Do you have a response for my criticism?

[Bossness]

Yeah, I understand your theory. I believe I just put a massive hole in it using nothing more than a quick trip to google. I am saying your theory is inadequate.

Do you have a response for my criticism?

And I'm sure if there was google during Einstein's era, you would have disproved his theory as well. Your criticism has been mainly based on the word vs concept, which-came-first, not on this theory. And that gives me a hint that you don't get what I'm saying. Picture the abstract world the same way you would the concrete: you create a name for an object you see, hear, smell, touch, taste, you don't create a name and afterwards the object appears. It's the same with ideas and concepts. According to this theory, ideas aren't created, they are discovered, and after discovery comes labelling

[stuck]

All right, but concepts don't all just exist from the beginning of time. Some concepts are created without precedent. That's the point with which I take umbrage.

[Bossness]

All right, but concepts don't all just exist from the beginning of time. Some concepts are created without precedent. That's the point with which I take umbrage.

Those concepts aren't created, they're discovered

[stuck]

Those concepts aren't created, they're discovered

Ok, well how the hell would you ever prove that? That's your goddamn axiom- I have to take that point for granted if I am to try to understand your argument.

Edit: in any case, I'm enjoying the discussion. I tend to get a little aggressive around philosophy. just thought I'd say that.

[Bossness]

Ok, well how the hell would you ever prove that? That's your goddamn axiom- I have to take that point for granted if I am to try to understand your argument.

Well, those magical flashes of insight that preludes such concepts without precedent, are basically the concrete world's version of discovering new items. The key term is "without precedent," meaning there was nothing like it to work with prior to discovery. That's how the hell I know. I understand my theory is unorthodox and a lil messy, and maybe I'm not explaining things the way I mean (I rarely do), but just try to see things from an unconventional view

[s0978]

There has to be an innate connection of ideas in all of us, if not then how would you explain how we all know what justice is, or how ideas you came up with on your own already exists and were originated by someone whom you probably had no influence on?

There is an innate connection, but that connection is only that our nervous systems are built pretty much the same way, such that our thoughts and experiences are bound to comparable.

We all know what justice is because we're capable of symbolic thought, and we're born into language, into culture. Language enables us to utilize the faculties and wisdom of others. You have a mother and a father, you've read books, you've watched television - you've never not been influenced by the complex symbolic system that is language. It would actually be quite difficult to claim that you've ever had a truly independent thought.

[stuck]

I've invented a term for an abstract notion that we've created in this discussion:

Metony- origin stuck 2011- from meta- and irony. The condition of unknowingly recreating a pre-existing argument which, ultimately, disproves itself.

[puzzled-observer]

It seems as though you agree with me without realizing it. My first comment on this thread alludes to yours; the fact that generally we have an innate understanding of these abstract concepts, it's when we get specific that we get misunderstood (specifics like freedom of speech, as in a specific type of freedom). Overall, we know freedom is the opposite of slavery, the capability to perform unrestricted actions, without boundaries. This broad concept is what I'm talking about. The same concept that shapes sayings like "free as a bird." This notion has always existed, even before we created a word for it. Keep in mind definition of words change, not the concepts.
Why would we use the word freedom to describe something which doesn't resemble our current conception of freedom in some way?

Your argument is that because we have words for abstract concepts, that those concepts must have always existed. Why can't they be developed?

[Grimssdur]

Those concepts aren't created, they're discovered

Sup Plato.

[Bossness]

Your argument is that because we have words for abstract concepts, that those concepts must have always existed. Why can't they be developed?

I'm glad you said this, because now I truly see that I've been misunderstood. So let me clarify by stating what my argument is not. My argument isn't what you thought it was; meaning I don't believe that because "we have words for abstract concepts, that those concepts must have always existed," in fact it's quite the opposite. I believe that the concepts exists whether or not we have words for them (or even identified em). My whole theory lies on the foundation of an abstract universe that's similar to our concrete world. Just like the concrete world has things that exists and are labelled with words for identification, so it is in the abstract. The color blue exists, whether or not you create a word for it.

And to answer your question, yes they can be developed, but not from thin air. Ideas are like matter, they are neither destroyed nor created, but instead discovered, transformed, and/or discarded. In fact, I like to picture ideas as the abstract version of biologic life: They live, they evolve with time, and the ones that aren't adaptable to the environment (society) become endangered. This concept is better understood the other way around (view biological life as ideas). French philosopher, Bernard Henri said that when brainstorming we come up with stupidities and good ideas, we later on get rid of the stupidities and work on the good ideas. Now put Levi's ideology into perspective; nature is brainstorming, and came up with ideas (species), some were stupidities others were good. The stupidities got trimmed off (extinction), while the good ideas were worked on (evolution). I really hope this helps you understand what I'm trying to get at here.

[puzzled-observer]

I'm glad you said this, because now I truly see that I've been misunderstood. So let me clarify by stating what my argument is not. My argument isn't what you thought it was; meaning I don't believe that because "we have words for abstract concepts, that those concepts must have always existed," in fact it's quite the opposite. I believe that the concepts exists whether or not we have words for them (or even identified em). My whole theory lies on the foundation of an abstract universe that's similar to our concrete world. Just like the concrete world has things that exists and are labelled with words for identification, so it is in the abstract. The color blue exists, whether or not you create a word for it.

And to answer your question, yes they can be developed, but not from thin air. Ideas are like matter, they are neither destroyed nor created, but instead discovered, transformed, and/or discarded. In fact, I like to picture ideas as the abstract version of biologic life: They live, they evolve with time, and the ones that aren't adaptable to the environment (society) become endangered. This concept is better understood the other way around (view biological life as ideas). French philosopher, Bernard Henri said that when brainstorming we come up with stupidities and good ideas, we later on get rid of the stupidities and work on the good ideas. Now put Levi's ideology into perspective; nature is brainstorming, and came up with ideas (species), some were stupidities others were good. The stupidities got trimmed off (extinction), while the good ideas were worked on (evolution). I really hope this helps you understand what I'm trying to get at here.
To me, you seem to be saying contradictory things.
Evolution is the process by which new categories of life are CREATED (not discovered). The human did not exist until it evolved. Similarly the idea of the computer did not exist until it evolved.
It's true that science works in a similar way to evolution as well, but what's being discovered in science is the information about reality. Ideas are created to model the experimental evidence, if they model it correctly, they are kept. Observations and phenomena are discovered, not ideas.

Now, regarding the statement of mine that you quoted: Why exactly do you believe that this "idea dimension" exists in the first place? Your op seemed to indicate that you thought so because it was the only (or best) way you could explain how we have words for abstract concepts.

[ACow]

I admit, I don't really know what you're trying to say.

Is it, as another poster has said, something akin to plato's archetypes? Or is it something more akin to psychological Jungian archetypes except with emotions that we all share some basic base? Is it a kind of rebuttal of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis? Is it a statement like cumulative scientific progress but with relation to emotion, say, something like darwin's social instincts?

/how's that for name dropping! But seriously, its easier that way...

[fduniho]

My overall theory is that there is a universe of abstractness that we live in subconsciously that's similar to our concrete world. The only difference is that this abstract universe isn't perceived with our 5 sense. And just like our concrete world where we have objects and forces we can all identify with (stone, seas, gravity etc), our abstract world is filled with ideas we all relate to. Whether or not the word changes, the ideas stick (if I change the word "black" and replace it with "hylt," no matter what you call it, you will always recognize it )

I don't believe there is a universe of abstractness that we live in subconsciously and derive our abstract ideas from. Such an idea concretizes abstractions, which is an absurdity. Abstractions are not concrete things that exist in some other realm. Abstractions are ideas we create by means of abstracting from the concrete. When I encounter concrete things that share certain traits in common, I can abstract what they share in common and create an abstract idea of a class that they all belong to. Looking at your avatar, I may abstract from the images shown there the idea of concrete representations of computer editing operations. Then I might expand on the idea with an image of Silly Putty with CTRL-C written on it. I did not pluck this idea from another realm I have subconscious access to. I came to the idea through the process of abstracting. Whether we're concerned with the universal abstract concepts you mention or the abstract concepts of concrete things like horse, house, barn, etc., they are still all due to the process of abstraction. Take truth, for example. Truth is a property shared by some statements and not shared by others. Consider these statements:

1 + 1 = 2
Fergus is male.
The Earth orbits the Sun.

I can abstract that they all have something in common, which is that they accurately describe reality, and we call the property they share truth. We did not have to pluck the idea of truth from some abstract realm. We came to it by abstracting a shared quality from particular examples.

With love, it may be harder to point out concrete examples from which the idea can be abstracted. If I point to other people who say they are in love, there is the problem that I can't get into their minds and experience for myself what they are experiencing when they say they are in love. I sometimes experience what I call love, but I can't easily compare my experience of love with that of others. Does this then mean that we get the idea of love from some otherworldly realm of abstraction? I don't think so. Although we cannot directly experience someone else's feelings of love, we can more directly experience what it is like to be loved by various people. Generally, people who love us treat us differently than people who don't, and this gives us something from which to abstract the idea of being loved. We can then turn this concept around and get the idea of feeling love. Besides this, we can get some sense of how others experience love through art. Through song, music, poetry, romantic dramas, etc., we may have enough to abstract some idea of love and then match it up with our own feelings. Unlike my concepts of simple concrete things, such as jars, my concept of love tends to grow through experience, perhaps always remaining incomplete. This fits with the theory that my concept of love has resulted from the activity of abstraction. If, on the contrary, I had plucked the idea of love from some otherworldly realm of concrete abstractions, my concept of love should remain as static as my concept of a horse or of a jar.

To sum up my theory vs. yours: Abstraction is a verb, not a noun.

[fduniho]

Is it, as another poster has said, something akin to plato's archetypes? Or is it something more akin to psychological Jungian archetypes except with emotions that we all share some basic base?

Plato wrote of forms, Jung of archetypes. I think Jung's archetypes are psychological forces, not abstract ideas. I think he is essentially arguing for Platonic forms, though it is possible he has never read Plato and is coming up with similar ideas on his own.

[fduniho]

On second thought, he might not be espousing Platonism. He may simply be positing that things like love, truth, freedom, etc., are real things in some abstract world, and it is through a connection with this abstract world that we become aware of them and form concepts of them. This is not Plato's idea of forms, which simply confuses our abstractions with real things, such that, for example, the form of a horse is a real thing in the world of forms. But I would disagree with even this. Love, truth, freedom, etc., exist in this world, and we do not need to posit the existence of some other realm of universals to explain how we know of them. But rather than being concrete things like jars or picnic tables, they are something along the lines of qualities, states, or conditions. For example, truth is the quality of being true, freedom is the condition of being free, and love is the state of someone who loves. To put it another way, there are concrete things in the world, and these concrete things have attributes. We can refer to these attributes in noun form even though they are not concrete things. For example, we may say we want justice, referring to justice as a noun, yet all we really mean is that we want people to treat each other justly and receive what is justly due to them. Beyond just treatment and just distribution of goods there is no such thing as justice.

[Bossness]

Ahhh! I have a lot of explaining to do (and a little correction to my theory). However, the internet on my computer is down and the reason I'm typing this is because my phone has internet, but what sucks is I have a lot to say and my phone doesn't have the QWERTY keyboard, so I may have to summarize a lot. Please bear w/ me.

[Bossness]

To me, you seem to be saying contradictory things.
Evolution is the process by which new categories of life are CREATED (not discovered). The human did not exist until it evolved. Similarly the idea of the computer did not exist until it evolved.
It's true that science works in a similar way to evolution as well, but what's being discovered in science is the information about reality. Ideas are created to model the experimental evidence, if they model it correctly, they are kept. Observations and phenomena are discovered, not ideas.

Now, regarding the statement of mine that you quoted: Why exactly do you believe that this "idea dimension" exists in the first place? Your op seemed to indicate that you thought so because it was the only (or best) way you could explain how we have words for abstract concepts.

I guess the contradiction I made was to compare ideas with matter (which can't be created or destroyed) to evolutionary lifeforms (which are created and destroyed by extinction). The easiest way to understand this is to visualize the lifeforms as complexities of matter that can't be created but can be transformed. So evolution is basically the transformation of matter, whereby new objects like computers, or new creatures like viruses aren't really created per se, but are more like an assembling of matter in an unprecedented manner. So that's what you mean by creation, then you're in fact correct. However, I would like to make a correction in my thesis: Some ideas have always existed, and some are "created."

[Bossness]

I admit, I don't really know what you're trying to say.

Is it, as another poster has said, something akin to plato's archetypes? Or is it something more akin to psychological Jungian archetypes except with emotions that we all share some basic base? Is it a kind of rebuttal of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis? Is it a statement like cumulative scientific progress but with relation to emotion, say, something like darwin's social instincts?

/how's that for name dropping! But seriously, its easier that way...

I really don't understand much of your question, so could you simplify it a lil bit.

[Bossness]

@fduniho, actually it's a two way street. We abstract concrete things and vice versa. We make concrete an abstract concept with symbols(ie a heart for love, a scale for justice, and a smiley face for happiness). And you said that in an abstract concept, it isn't as definite in recognition as a horse or jar, well this isn't true considering the fact that the concepts may have different levels and categories just like your picture of a horse could be different from mine in respect to age, size, and breed.

[Bossness]

Plato wrote of forms, Jung of archetypes. I think Jung's archetypes are psychological forces, not abstract ideas. I think he is essentially arguing for Platonic forms, though it is possible he has never read Plato and is coming up with similar ideas on his own.

I haven't read Plato and yes, I am coming up with this independently. However, I am curious to what Plato came up with, so if you have a link please share.

[puzzled-observer]

I guess the contradiction I made was to compare ideas with matter (which can't be created or destroyed) to evolutionary lifeforms (which are created and destroyed by extinction). The easiest way to understand this is to visualize the lifeforms as complexities of matter that can't be created but can be transformed.
So then what is the "matter" on the idea side of your analogy? The ideas are the life forms, you're saying there's some "matter" here that is distinct from the ideas themselves-- that merely acts as building blocks for the structure of ideas?


I'd like to push you to answer my question from my previous response.
Why exactly do you believe that this "idea dimension" exists in the first place? Your op seemed to indicate that you thought so because it was the only (or best) way you could explain how we have words for abstract concepts.
Does this correctly describe your reasoning? If so, what data do you have that can't be explained by assuming ideas exist only in our minds? Furthermore, by what mechanism do we "discover" this matter-like substance that makes up our ideas?

[fduniho]

I haven't read Plato and yes, I am coming up with this independently. However, I am curious to what Plato came up with, so if you have a link please share.

The Theory of Forms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms) Wikipedia page is probably a good place to start, and it includes links you can follow to the original sources.

[fduniho]

@fduniho, actually it's a two way street. We abstract concrete things and vice versa. We make concrete an abstract concept with symbols(ie a heart for love, a scale for justice, and a smiley face for happiness). And you said that in an abstract concept, it isn't as definite in recognition as a horse or jar, well this isn't true considering the fact that the concepts may have different levels and categories just like your picture of a horse could be different from mine in respect to age, size, and breed.

I reread what I wrote, and I didn't find any form of the word recognition. So I think you're misunderstanding what I said. In the context in which I mentioned horses and jars, I was discussing love. I raised some of the special problems the idea of love has for my theory, namely that I cannot easily compare and contrast my experience of love with someone else's, because love is internal to people. In contrast to this, jars and horses exist externally to us. If I mention jars to someone who doesn't know what jars are, I can get a jar and show her one. This is enough to convey the concept of jar to someone. But if I mention love to someone who doesn't understand the word, I cannot easily point to something specific and say this is love. I may feel love inside me, but I cannot lay bare my feelings to someone else's examination. Bear in mind here that I'm raising a problem for my theory with this contrast. It is not evidence for my theory that the concept of love is harder to convey to someone than the concept of a jar. But after I present the problem, which has to do with the phenomenological exclusiveness of any experience of love, I proceed to explain how my theory handles the problem.

[Bossness]

So then what is the "matter" on the idea side of your analogy? The ideas are the life forms, you're saying there's some "matter" here that is distinct from the ideas themselves-- that merely acts as building blocks for the structure of ideas?


I'd like to push you to answer my question from my previous response.
Why exactly do you believe that this "idea dimension" exists in the first place? Your op seemed to indicate that you thought so because it was the only (or best) way you could explain how we have words for abstract concepts.
Does this correctly describe your reasoning? If so, what data do you have that can't be explained by assuming ideas exist only in our minds? Furthermore, by what mechanism do we "discover" this matter-like substance that makes up our ideas?

This might also sound a lil contradictory if thought of superficially, but a deeper analysis would point out the logic in it: The "matter" is ideas. You see, what we call lifeforms are nothing more than complex matter (I believe I implied this already) whose "building blocks" are for the complex matter is still matter, it's the same with ideas. This is exactly why I claimed "some ideas are "created",while others aren't. The best way to comprehend this notion is to use an analogy of numbers; all real numbers are either products of prime numbers or prime numbers (no in betweens). So think of the building block ideas as prime numbers, and the "created" complex ideas as products of those prime number. To differentiate between complex ideas and the primary ideas, I decided to label them "prideas" and "prodeas." The word "pridea" is a combination of prime and idea, and it's definition is an idea that can't be simplified any further. "Prodea" is the combination of product and idea, and it means an idea that's a product of two or more other ideas. A good example of prideas and prodeas is symbiosis and capitalism. Symbiosis is the pridea here and it's simply the idea of trade, whereas, capitalism, the prodea, is a much more complex version of symbiosis mixed with currency, competition and other factors. So when I compared ideas to biological life, I really meant prodeas. Hope this explains a lot.

As for why I believe in this universe of ideas, I have to start by saying this is a new idea to me. It all started when I posted a thread named "Ideas you thought you originated but didn't," after reading all the comments and seeing that I wasn't the only one who comes up with independently thought out ideas that already exist, I began to question how it is possible for two people who no influence on each other, no contact, and almost no connection to reach the same conclusions and/or create the same ideas. It went further, I started thinking about how we all know what justice, love, peace, and happiness are in the same manner we all know what a man, steak, shoes, or a dog. It was then I started taking a deeper look into our use of language; "looking for love in all the wrong places," "Justice must be served," "I finally have peace," "I'm on the pursuit of happiness." The way those phrases were coined, it almost seemed as if those abstract ideas are tangible. In fact, I could replace all those abstract nouns with the examples of concrete nouns I gave earlier on, and still make sense out of it: "looking for a man in all the wrong places," "steak must be served," "I finally have shoes," "I'm on the pursuit of a dog." Then it dawned on me; reality is made up of two separate worlds that collide: the concrete and the abstract. They act similar to the left and right hemispheres of our brains, and share very similar characteristics but differ in a big way: tangibility. Just like we discover new concrete material in our concrete world, we do the same in our abstract. And speaking of discovery, even though I feel like I was the first to discover this (although I think I'm subconsciously hoping someone else discovered this already), the way some people are throwing the word "Plato" I have a feeling that this might be an idea I thought I originated but didn't.

Words vs concepts was an example to try and validate my theory, that wasn't what led me. My last thread did.

[Bossness]

The Theory of Forms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms) Wikipedia page is probably a good place to start, and it includes links you can follow to the original sources.

Wow! His ideas are very similar to mine, except mine are less spiritual! I guess "forms" answers puzzled-observer's question of the "matter" version of ideas.

[Bossness]

If I mention jars to someone who doesn't know what jars are, I can get a jar and show her one. This is enough to convey the concept of jar to someone. But if I mention love to someone who doesn't understand the word, I cannot easily point to something specific and say this is love.

Yes because a jar is concrete, and love isn't. So you really can't point to anything to illustrate what love is. Here's another example; showing a honda civic to someone who doesn't know what a car is. The person is going to look at the specifics and the generalities to grasp what a car is, but keep in mind there are various types of cars, and that might conflict with his/her internal recognition of because of the specific example delivered to the person. Same with love. There are various types of love; there's the love you have for your car, the love you have for your parents (if you love em), there's the love you have for your wife, and then there is the love you have for your kids. The broader one gets on an idea, the more likely it becomes universal, the opposite is true when one gets specific

[Flatchett]

It all started when I posted a thread named "Ideas you thought you originated but didn't," after reading all the comments and seeing that I wasn't the only one who comes up with independently thought out ideas that already exist, I began to question how it is possible for two people who no influence on each other, no contact, and almost no connection to reach the same conclusions and/or create the same ideas.

People like this don't actually exist. Unless maybe they were raised by wolves.

[Bossness]

People like this don't actually exist. Unless maybe they were raised by wolves.

The person who figured out the pattern of squarian digits had no influence on me, no contact and little connection with me, yet I discovered the same pattern as he/she. Unless you consider my SJ parents as wolves, I don't see much truth to your comment.

[Flatchett]

The person who figured out the pattern of squarian digits had no influence on me, no contact and little connection with me, yet I discovered the same pattern as he/she. Unless you consider my SJ parents as wolves, I don't see much truth to your comment.

Presumably you were both familiar with the concept of numbers and arithmetic, no?

[Bossness]

Presumably you were both familiar with the concept of numbers and arithmetic, no?

Yes, and that's part of the little connection I mentioned earlier.

[damejoulerib]

It makes me wonder, when humans first invented languages, how did they come up with words for abstract concepts such as love, hate, frustration, mischief?

Check out Steven Pinker, "The Stuff of Thought". Applied linguistics; specifically, relationship between our inner 'mentalese' and (spoken) language.

[Zephyrus055]

We share the same experiences, and our neurons intersect to form new ideas rooted in our language.

[damejoulerib]

ideas rooted in our language

Or language rooted in our ideas.

[Zephyrus055]

Or language rooted in our ideas.

Poor choice of words on my part.

Experiences that enter our memory exist as neurons. Those neurons can intersect, so to speak, at some point to reveal new possibilities. If you know A are B and C are A, then those neurons may intersect and it will occur to you that C are B. However, we use language to share ideas and perform complex reasoning.

[damejoulerib]

we use language to ... perform complex reasoning.

"Stuff of Thought" is really fascinating because this is exactly what it looks at. The popular conception is that language shapes thought; this book sets out to say the opposite -- the way we think shapes our use of language.

I am a sucker for Steven Pinker, linguistics, cognitive psychology!

[Bossness]

Heard a lot about Pinker, will def check him out, but my theory isn't based on language, I just used it as a tool to present my point. Maybe I did a bad job of communicating my ideas, but what I really wanted you guys to understand is that reality us made up if two separate but similar worlds; concrete and abstract. In the concrete world everything is perceived with our five senses, while the abstract world can only be perceived with our intellect. Everything in the concrete world is composed of fundamental pieces of matter, but in the abstract world it's what I call "prideas," prime ideas. Sensors are more into the concrete world, while intuitors are more into the abstract. You guys get my point now?

[Zephyrus055]

Heard a lot about Pinker, will def check him out, but my theory isn't based on language, I just used it as a tool to present my point. Maybe I did a bad job of communicating my ideas, but what I really wanted you guys to understand is that reality us made up if two separate but similar worlds; concrete and abstract. In the concrete world everything is perceived with our five senses, while the abstract world can only be perceived with our intellect. Everything in the concrete world is composed of fundamental pieces of matter, but in the abstract world it's what I call "prideas," prime ideas. Sensors are more into the concrete world, while intuitors are more into the abstract. You guys get my point now?

I find that highly implausible. It suggests a parallel reality beyond experience, that is sensed by our intellect. Sorry, can't buy it. Rather, I believe our ideas are influenced by our experience, cognitive biology, and language. When two people independently arrive at the same idea, it's because their neurons intersected in a similar fashion. In other words, their memories of sensations and ideas intersected to reveal new logical possibilities. The understanding of A are B and C are A, and then understood the possibility that C are B.

If your idea was correct, then a person could perceive the subject of Physics without being taught it. That sounds pretty bizarre. I never heard of anyone disappearing in thought and then cognitively perceiving the laws of Physics relevant to cosmic objects etc. Rather, Physicists developed their equations and models from generations of observation and testing, and each new generation had to learn from the previous generation. Moreover, plenty of theories were later dismissed as false, and even today there are contradictory theories that they have yet to eliminate.

In the case of iNuitives and Sensors, there is no doubt a difference. For example, SJs may say something like "the young should respect their elders." Of course, I can't help but think of alternative possibilities where that would be inappropriate. Should a 15 year old boy, for example, respect and listen to the advice of his grandfather, who is sitting in prison for murder and continues to advocate for violence? In other words, Ns can see the big picture, while Ss are inclined to have tunnel vision.

[kraiz]

In the concrete world everything is perceived with our five senses, while the abstract world can only be perceived with our intellect.

Similar to reality as we are visualizing, smelling, touching etc. and then the "abstract world" which is our thoughts. Maybe each brain has its own "abstract world" that we are nurturing with the concrete world, this is why some ideas change/adapt as humanity adapts (because the concrete world is changing/adapting). As our intellect changes our "abstractions" change.

The "abstractions" that are adapted/updated in most of the population will slowly erase the prior "abstraction". Almost like a superseded thought?

[Bossness]

I find that highly implausible. It suggests a parallel reality beyond experience, that is sensed by our intellect. Sorry, can't buy it. Rather, I believe our ideas are influenced by our experience, cognitive biology, and language. When two people independently arrive at the same idea, it's because their neurons intersected in a similar fashion. In other words, their memories of sensations and ideas intersected to reveal new logical possibilities. The understanding of A are B and C are A, and then understood the possibility that C are B.

If your idea was correct, then a person could perceive the subject of Physics without being taught it. That sounds pretty bizarre. I never heard of anyone disappearing in thought and then cognitively perceiving the laws of Physics relevant to cosmic objects etc. Rather, Physicists developed their equations and models from generations of observation and testing, and each new generation had to learn from the previous generation. Moreover, plenty of theories were later dismissed as false, and even today there are contradictory theories that they have yet to eliminate.

In the case of iNuitives and Sensors, there is no doubt a difference. For example, SJs may say something like "the young should respect their elders." Of course, I can't help but think of alternative possibilities where that would be inappropriate. Should a 15 year old boy, for example, respect and listen to the advice of his grandfather, who is sitting in prison for murder and continues to advocate for violence? In other words, Ns can see the big picture, while Ss are inclined to have tunnel vision.

It isn't a parallel reality, it IS a part of reality. My whole theory is that what we call reality is made of a concrete and abstract world that unite (think deeply about this before you try to counter). Just like your view of the concrete world is based on cognitive biology, experience and language, the same goes for the abstract. Whatever you "see" "hear" or "smell" is based primarily on your ability to perceive (you can't see colors if you were born blind, but just because this blind guy can't see these colors doesn't mean they don't exist. Same goes for the abstract world, just because there are some ideas that seems unconventional and bizarre(like this one) to someone who can't perceive them, doesn't mean they don't exist in the abstract world).

Actually you do perceive physics without being taught it; intuitively. You know that if a ball is dropped it would bounce back, you don't have to take a physics class to be use this fact to your advantage on the basketball court. What I think you're talking about is that one can't come up with the theory of relativity without learning physics. This can be analogous to the how the concrete world is. Think of every precious idea as hidden treasures, some have been discovered and some haven't been. In order to obtain these hidden treasures, one can either be equipped with the right tools and location to find it ("tools" is analogous to knowledge in the abstract world, while "location" is the subject or state of mind, at least for this example) or one might accidentally bump into it. Either way they have to have landed in the location (or state of mind to find it). Now the an archaeologist is more likely to discover new treasures because he is better equipped with "tools" 9in the concrete and abstract sense) than the average man, just like a physics professor is more likely to discover new formulas than the average man.

The fact that I've never taking a philosophy class nor have I ever read philosophy, yet my ideas on an abstract world is similar to that of Plato's is more reason for me to validate my theory, you can call it confirmation bias if you want.

Hopefully, all this makes sense because I don't even feel like I communicated my ideas well enough (I almost never do), but if you have any more questions or arguments I'd be more than willing to hear them.

[selah17]

Well, I think you may or may not be on to something, but it's true that not all knowledge can be explained from a deductive stand-point. See Goedel's Incomplete Theorem. Whether or not we are able to comprehend a circle and balls that bounce back up because there is a world of forms with perfect circles and perfect bouncing balls or whether we intuit the concept because we have observed them in this world I'll leave to you to decide. The main problem with this abstract world interacting with this one is physics. And not whether we get it from Newton or from a revelation you got standing in line at Walmart, waiting to purchase your cheesy poofs, but if this interacting between worlds is going on than you should be able to observe it somehow, like you would any fundamental force, changing the course of your actions and bringing synthesized goodness from the store to your home to your mouth. And so far cognitive scientists have failed to observe such a special conscious force redirecting the particles in our brains. Even so I'm not writing you off. I don't think anyone really has a clue still when it comes to consciousness and physics gets weirder by the minute, so whose to say that the neutrinos real function isn't in carrying information from over-lapping reality to the other?