Page 21 of 23 « First<1920212223>
Topic Options
#62074 - 12/01/11 09:25 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
- Give me a definition of abstraction.

OR

- For counterclaim against see here

Top
#62075 - 12/01/11 09:30 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Abstract is apart from the concrete reality not? So what is an abstraction in this sense but something which is no longer rooted in reality?

When I say "tree", this tree exists in my mind and when communicating it to you, it triggers the "tree" that exists in your mind. Both of those are pretty much abstractions no?

I really don't see what there is to disagree with this. But feel free to show me why it is wrong to think of this as abstractions.

D.

Top
#62076 - 12/01/11 10:12 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Allow me to illustrate the point explicitly... (Note try define abstraction by what it is not and I might be bothered to do better)

it because besides some outsider strain of fucktardation it is generally accepted the map is not the territory therefore the categorical imperative of concrete vs abstraction is not really addressing this in the slightest but more is building an index of differentiation of communication but given i have bastardized every fixed rule of grammar in this response it is suggestive by point of example that language functions in a way and has key components either in written or verbal communication which are not abstract but rather specific in there nature if you can count my errors of grammar or even indicate where by now i should probably have taken a new paragraph that really is not an abstract reference rather what your entire thesis is built on is some kind of lose description of perception of language which i never really said was illegitimate but rather just part of the cognitive functioning of language and because of this is really to narrow be a comprehensive thesis by any means in either written or spoken word here at this point i am repeating myself and thus further bastardizing language in ineffectual communication but hey this absurdity just amasses my point because abstract objects also lack specific referents my car is not your car and hence not the abstract car if i have 7 pears, 9 bananas and 12 strawberries for my lunch this really ceases to be abstractly referred to as fruit etc the very fact you think you have a specific context of discussion and violated this with body language was another subtle irony i thought a guy as sharp as yourself might grasp but it didnt happen i also addressed this in the previous post in a much more concise manner we could take this discussion to various modes of cognition or to linguistics but really i think the conversation is dealt with best by laying a simple claim that abstraction is not all differentiation by definition and simply showing with this bullshit that there exist other fundamental operations in language which specifically and are inherently not abstract in nature but fixed rules expected in discourse when we use whole sentences this is more or less concisely put in previous posts where i make mention of cognition and other linguistic rules but whatever floats your boat seriously one single definition of abstraction in psychology or linguistics or philosophy or from a dictionary would be appreciated on your part but responding to your bullshit definition of abstract by trying to define it by what it is not and this is what your gonna get


Edited by thedeadidea (12/01/11 10:21 AM)

Top
#62077 - 12/01/11 10:20 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Again and it really isn't complicated is it; when I say "tree" is this an abstraction or not?

D.

Top
#62078 - 12/01/11 10:27 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
1. Try define abstraction by what it is not.
2. Try give one single definition from the dictionary, psychology, linguistics or philosophy.
3. To your question yes but does not prove your point.
4. read the bullshit in previous post (illustration)
5. Ponder this from previous post

 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea

Actually you are hardly talking about anything much at all but meandering around describing a cognitive base of language. Although this does nothing to actually justify your nothing statement language is abstraction.
Actually what you would crudely be describing is best centered around phonology perhaps more specifically a shitty rendition of the theory of signs.

Actually that is relevant but hardly the basis or only concern linguistics as a study is built on. It is only one component of language and hardly comprehensive enough to say one is discussing language in any holistic sense.

Actually you are ignoring syntax structures,semantics and pragmatics all of which are integral to spoken and written language. In which language ceases to function in abstraction because words take on specific referents and statements. Actually this comprises the vast majority of human communication to one another and our conscious or inner narrative.



p.s. Actually.

Top
#62079 - 12/01/11 10:31 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I respond to it didn't I?


The point was: whenever I use a word or sentence to communicate; is this an abstraction?

You said no; which is totally fine with me but instead of providing arguments for this no and show us why we're wrong, you dodge the actual point in the hope as such to still preserve a win.

D.



See previous post to realize how I really am not dodging shit and clearly provide an argument and an illustration to why I say no.

Top
#62080 - 12/01/11 10:44 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Don't you think it is strange that everyone involved pretty much knows what we were actually talking about and how abstraction fits in there?

So what is the problem? I'll tell you; you try too damn hard. First I'm a coward who locks posts when he got painted into a corner, which really didn't turn out to be the case not? Most here know I'm an old dog and really dig this sort of debates.

But apparently paint was running out and it wasn't much of a corner. I know fairly well what I talk about even when this not necessarily implies I'm right. I can be wrong too you know, like all others and I actually appreciate it when someone shows why.

So my arguments still stand and you're free to counter them. But dragging along things unrelated to the very point debated doesn't really benefit. When I say I'm an old dog, it implies I know why we are diverting and I can even back-trace your sudden "new" arguments. If I google "abstraction" and check the linguistics in wiki, you think I don't notice a familiarity. I just checked.

So just stop trying too hard and just say your thing about the subject talked about instead of doing what I'd call backpedaling.

Thank you,

D.

Top
#62081 - 12/01/11 11:07 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
I am just repeating myself not backpedalling as I am really not changing my argument. You announced the central issue of the debate I re-quoted my argument that I apparently didn't provide to the point. If you want to rest on a definition of abstraction based upon what it is not and not what it is and call it an argument. Take yourself and your abstraction and jump in the river with the christian apologist and his god for all intents and purposes. In fact if you rested on the wiki definition or the google definition you'd be doing better then you have otherwise done so.

If you want me to start bringing up Pinker, Wittgenstein and Chomsky I'll do that those are the guys who I am partially familar with. But right now there seems no point in putting any effort into this at all given the current state of affairs. Why is that? See previous posts...

Top
#62082 - 12/01/11 11:16 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Weren't you the one asking me to give a definition of abstraction that would apply?

I was just explaining why most of language at work can be considered as subject to abstraction. That's all there was to it.

D.

Top
#62083 - 12/01/11 12:00 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4007
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I really have no idea what tdi is even trying to say, perhaps this is because his abstractions are a little /too/ abstract?

Regardless, Even if intended as a counter argument we seem to be left with an example of precisely what I have been saying. Words can only ever be mindspace representations of what they are intended to convey.
_________________________



Top
#62084 - 12/01/11 12:47 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Most of what he brings to the table is related to language but in this context as relevant as throwing in traffic rules when we talk about cars.

You are right about Mindspace representations even when I would not agree in all cases. Like I said; pointers or triggers.

Somewhere in his replies, he agrees when I state that when someone says tree, this tree exists in Mindspace and is nothing but an abstraction. But apparently even when it being considered correct, it does not seem to prove my point at all.

Which puzzles me because to me that's like saying that when I claim 1 + 1 = 2, even when that is correct, it does not mean I'm right.

D.

Top
#62089 - 12/01/11 06:56 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Yes nice D all language is subject to abstraction to some degree... But yet I challenge you to provide me a single definition for the word that you can use in substitute of all differentiation. Further you are not just talking about using or exchanging language but really might as well be talking about how any distinct or differentiated object is arrived at through perception/cognition. Because language by it's very nature has nonverbal components and specific grammar (which by definition wouldn't be abstract) in there most basic use because by there very nature they are specific in there usage from person to person.

If you don't understand the difference and the simple rejection of your thesis. The fact you can't work out while I'll concede is while I'll egg you on to try find a single definition of abstraction a thousand times.

By your very own way of trying to set up the debate you are

1. Not really talking about what you are insisting you are
2. Using language accurately





Edited by thedeadidea (12/01/11 07:01 PM)

Top
#62090 - 12/01/11 07:15 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
What are you actually asking me to do because I simply have no idea. First you ask me a definition for abstraction and then you complain I'm using a definition of what it is not. Sorry man but if you ask me to define unreal and I say not real you can hardly complain because it is not real isn't it?

I even did you a favor and used a dictionary definition; apart from (concrete) reality.

You prefer me to make something up? Ok; snuffleguf.

D.

Top
#62091 - 12/01/11 08:03 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
You used a dictionary definition (specifically?) which one was that ?

Abstraction is a process by which higher concepts are derived from the usage and classification of literal ("real" or "concrete") concepts, first principles, or other methods. An "abstraction" (noun) is a concept that acts as a super-categorical noun for all subordinate concepts, and connects any related concepts as a group, field, or category.
Abstractions may be formed by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball retains only the information on general ball attributes and behavior, eliminating the other characteristics of that particular ball.


I'll go with that from wiki... ergo using the sentence is not an abstraction

"I threw my soccer ball to Stewart in the park near my house on a Tuesday afternoon."

Top
#62093 - 12/01/11 10:47 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Look man, this is getting a bit sad. Everyone knows what we were talking about but you which means either we all are a bit stupid and you're damn smart of you've maybe been screaming a bit too loud and now desperately need to be right.

But it's ok kid, it matters little to me so if it makes you feel better, I'll admit you're right. I'd even admit you're a genius and will probably one day win the Nobel prize for smartnessness.

Feel better now? Good, let's end this then and I'll go play with grownups.

D.

Top
Page 21 of 23 « First<1920212223>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.019 seconds of which 0.007 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.