A version of Frege's account is what Stanford calls the Way of Negation, where an object is abstract if and only if it is both non-mental and non-physical. — RussellA
For example, the abstract idea of yellowness could be invented by considering several yellow objects and finding what feature they had in common — RussellA
In summary, I know that I can invent abstract ideas such as yellowness in my mind by observing the physical world, — RussellA
but I know that I can never discover whether or not yellowness is a non-physical and non-mental abstract idea. — RussellA
Following Occam's Razor in choosing the simplest explanation, I can therefore ignore non-physical and non-mental abstract ideas, because even if they exist I don't need them. — RussellA
For example, any group of yellow objects is also a group of things, of seeable things, and of colored things. How could you abstract yellowness instead of thinghood, seableness, or coloredness from the group? — Tristan L
I agree that an object may have several features. Given a set of objects each having several properties, I could define a particular object as being yellow, ie, having yellowness, if it emits a wavelength of between 570 and 590 nm, regardless of what other properties it had. — RussellA
The observer abstracts what is beneficial to themselves and ignores what isn't. — RussellA
A bee abstracts the colours and scents in a flower indicative of nectar whilst ignoring the number of petals which isn't. — RussellA
Though a study by the University of Queensland has shown that bees can count up to a certain number in order to communicate between themselves using the "waggle dance", showing that animals can abstract when of some evolutionary advantage. — RussellA
If it is possible to invent an idea, then it is impossible to invent an idea? Hmm.
— Luke
Now apply Clavius's Law (consequentia mirabilis). — Tristan L
Does Clavius' Law save you from all contradictions? — Luke
I don't know if someone already posted it, but this seems relevant:
https://youtu.be/sfXn_ecH5Rw — Kenosha Kid
I'm encouraged to see that others think similarly. — Kenosha Kid
I raised this on a writing forum once. It was a very unpopular opinion haha! — Kenosha Kid
My algorithm is not there to be put into actual practice anymore than quantum field theory is meant to be used to predict car accidents. It’s existence and principle abilities, rather than its practical usefulness, are what count. — Tristan L
However, not every string of characters is an idea. — Luke
However, not every string of characters is an idea.
— Luke
This is irrelevant. — Kenosha Kid
Every text -- and Tristan limited his purview to texts -- is a string of characters. That is, by searching the entire space of strings of characters, one searches the entire space of texts. — Kenosha Kid
What do you mean by "text"? Where did Tristan limit his purview to texts? — Luke
You seem to think ideas exist in the ether, and that they are not tied to a consciousness ground, and not subject to evolutionary principles.
— Pop
Yes, of course, just as numbers, functions, sets, properties, relationships, and all the other abstract things exist in the ‘above-heavenly world (hyperuranion)’ – which is just another way of saying that they don’t exist in space or time (but not outside them, either, for outsideness is a spatial notion) – and aren’t tied to awareness or evolution or anything conrete for that matter, be it physical, mindly, spatial, or temporal. — Tristan L
My contradiction? Your contradiction! I have shown that your assumption that ideas can be invented lets its own negation follow and thereby beats itself. Pfhorrest has already explained Clavius’ Law to you. I honestly ask: Do you understand the basic logical structure of my arguments?I think this requires much further justification to avoid your clear contradiction. Does Clavius' Law save you from all contradictions? — Luke
An assertion that no one but you has made, so by taking issue with it, you’re attacking a straw-man.What I take issue with is the suggestion or assertion that all of those possibilities have (already) been actualised. — Luke
Unless your algorithm has completed producing every possible combination of characters, then those alleged invention ideas (possibilities) have not yet been actualised and do not yet have any substantive existence. — Luke
That someone is already part of the algorithm, for he is the understander. Recall that my algorithm = my program + understander.Until your algorithm produces a new idea (and someone finds it), — Luke
The possibiliy itself, th.i. the fact that the idea might be come up with, is actual from the start. The finding of the idea, on the other hand, only comes into actual existence once it is foredetermined that the idea will be found, which is the case from the point at which my algorithm is started. My possibility-argument uses the former truth, namely the actual existence of the might-fact, and my algorithm-argument uses the latter truth, namely that from the time at which my algorithm is started, for every finitely expressible idea EID, the fact that EID will be found exists.Until your algorithm produces a new idea (and someone finds it), then that idea/invention remains only possible and not actual. — Luke
Again a great example that you haven’t gotten basic points that I’ve said over and over again, and that even now, you misunderstand my position. Making reference to ’s remark, drinking is needed for living, and likewise, understanding the other’s position is needed to keep a philosophical talk meaningful and working. But of course, to drink or not to drink is each one’s own decision...As a Platonist, you probably take the view that there is no distinction between possible and actual existence of those ideas. However, this precludes the possibility of human invention from the outset: If all ideas already exist (substantively), then nobody can actualise them. — Luke
In risk of repeating myself, you can substitute “invent” (or “discover”, but that’s unrelevant here) for “find”/”come up with”.Let EID be an arbitrary idea that someone has found. Since someone has found EID, it must always have been actually possible that someone could someday find EID. So the possibility Poss(EID) that someone might someday come up with EID must have always actually existed. But Poss(EID) is actually defined in terms of EID – it’s the possibility of finding EID after all –, and so, there is an actual, essential, fixed bond between EID and Poss(EID). Hence, EID must also have always actually existed. — Tristan L
But it can discover them through actual practice, at least as much as quantum field theory can in actual practice be used to describe cell division. However, just as describing cell division with QFT is extremely difficult, complex, cumbersome, and resource-intensive, so is finding ideas with my algorithm. (Note, however, that some simple ideas will be discovered by my algorithm in reasonable time.) This is what is meant by “impractical”. Another good example is Karl Fritiof Sundman’s solution of almost all instances of the general three-body-probem, which, though exact, would likely need more years when used in astronomy than there are particles in the observable universe. In fact, applying Sundman’s solution would take much more time than using my algorithm to find LOTR, for instance.Unless your algorithm can discover ideas via actual practice, then it adds nothing to the argument that ideas are discovered rather than invented. — Luke
You appear to assume that any given idea is expressible in the ASCII characters that your algorithm produces. An inventor of ideas must likewise be able to express an (invented) idea using the same characters. — Luke
...and map each such string to the corresponding idea. Don’t forget the understander!What your algorithm does is simply produce or actualise every possible combination of characters. — Luke
Thus showing that the space of all possibilites is actual.Therefore - along with an [...] all possible expressions. — Luke
Even more: no string of characteres is an idea (actually, it technically is an idea, but usually not the same as the idea which it represents); rather, it represents, stands for, an idea.However, not every string of characters is an idea. — Luke
No worries, rest assured that all useful possibilites are really actualized.Whether or not all possibilities are actualised — Luke
True, except for the “overlooks”-part (see below).what this overlooks is that ideas - in the sense we are discussing - have some usefulness or interest to humanity. The important part is finding the useful or interesting ideas within the range of possibilities. — Luke
With the help of its understander, of course. He will read all the texts, and once he finds a meaningful one whose content is useful, he’ll recognize it as such. For example, just as I recognized that the descriptions of the high-voltage VdG-generator which I read online mean a useful idea (and a very interesting one at that), the understander will see that a description of the VDGG output by the program refers to a useful and interesting idea.Any example of an idea that you will give is one that humanity has found to be useful or interesting. Deciding what counts as an interesting or useful idea is easily done for all past ideas which have already been found to be so. How does your algorithm decide which as-yet undiscovered or uninvented ideas will be useful and/or interesting for humanity? That is, how does your algorithm decide which expressions are ideas and which are not? — Luke
Of course they do; that’s my point! The deterministic nature of the algorithm just drives it home.All of the possibilities already exist whether your algorithm actualises them or not, — Luke
How often are you going to reiterate this point which I’ve been agreeing with all along?but the possibilities are not the ideas. — Luke
True (namely that each of idea-discoverableness and idea-inventability lets existence of all possibilities follow). At the same time, the existence of all possibilities is incompatible with the inventableness of ideas. What does that mean? That ideas cannot be invented.All possibilities exist whether ideas are discovered or invented. — Luke
No, it doesn’t, for the possibilities are essentially defined in terms of the ideas, so if the possibilities exist, so must the ideas.It begs the question to assume that the existence of all possibilities (or all possible expressions) implies the pre-existence of all ideas. — Luke
If ideas exist after their discovery, but they can’t be created, then they must also exist before the discovery. Otherwise, the discovery would actually be an act of creation.I disagree btw with the notion that ideas pre-exist their discovery — Kenosha Kid
You’ve got a point, so from now on, let’s try to use “widea” (from the Or-Indo-European root “*weid-” (“to see”), which “idea” and “eidos” are drawn from) for the philosophical and especially the Platonish concept and “idea” for the artistic one.In the context of creativity, which this must be, my issue is that this is a philosopher's idea of "idea" being conflated with a creative person's idea of "idea". You are free to define your terms as you see fit, of course, but when I "have an idea" in a creative context, it is not some abstract thing, nor is it the output of a creative act. — Kenosha Kid
As do I. The possibilities in the space are real, abstract entities, as are the wideas to which they are linked. I don’t understand why Pfhorrest and you unneededly seem to back down from full-fledged platonism, though. This is one point where I likely agree with Luke; he seems to understand Pfhorrest’s position as platonist, and I don’t see any way in which Pfhorrest cannot be interpreted as such.I think Pfhorrest's description of it as a configuration space is accurate. — Kenosha Kid
In the case of my algorithm (= my program + understander), there is, namely the understander.There is no means of assessing the success of the search. — Kenosha Kid
According to this definition, the widea also fore-exists, for just as the original possibility-space just exists, so does the space of all possible searches through it. However, instantiating one such possible search by free will creates mental information, and in this way, the process is creative. But again, we can make an algorithm which brute-forces all possible searches (and thus conducts a brute-force meta-search), another one which brute-forces all possible over-searches (meta-searches), and so on to infinity (and beyond?).So an idea, in a creative sense, means to me a highly guided, highly constrained search through a configuration subspace. — Kenosha Kid
Yes, and that’s what the understander is there for. The crucial point is that the understander only needs to have the mindly ability to understand, but no creativeness whatsoever. For example, if you take the role of the understander, you’ll get the same feelings, emotions, and thoughts when you hear "Winterstürme" and "Du bist der Lenz" regardless of whether the information stems from Wagner’s mind or from my deterministic program AllEndlyStrings.Computer algorithms are very good at the searching, but they need to be told what success looks like, something entirely absent from the infinite monkeys approach, and something difficult to conceive a computer figuring out by itself. — Kenosha Kid
My contradiction? Your contradiction! I have shown that your assumption that ideas can be invented lets its own negation follow and thereby beats itself. — Tristan L
Pfhorrest has already explained Clavius’ Law to you. I honestly ask: Do you understand the basic logical structure of my arguments? — Tristan L
Yep, of course they do! The fact that Alice thinks about EID exists only from the first moment at which it is certain that Alice would think about EID, but the fact that Alice might think about EID always actually exists. Regarding my algorithm, it is completely deterministic, and so any idea that it finds is found without any creativity. This shows that creativity is not needed when coming up with ideas. — Tristan L
That someone is already part of the algorithm, for he is the understander. Recall that my algorithm = my program + understander. — Tristan L
The gist of my position is this: Ideas are abstract things, and as such, they have eternal, absolute and pure being. In particular, they cannot be invented or otherwise created, for their existence isn’t time-bound. However, like many abstract entities, ideas have concrete mental and physical instances. Since these exist in time, they can be invented or otherwise created. — Tristan L
What we call “actualization” of an idea is the instantiation of that idea, th.i. the making of a mental of physical instance of it. For example, the number 3 is eternal, but the thought I’m having about the number 3 right now is temporal, concrete, and mental. — Tristan L
Let EID be an arbitrary idea that someone has found. Since someone has found EID, it must always have been actually possible that someone could someday find EID. So the possibility Poss(EID) that someone might someday come up with EID must have always actually existed. — Tristan L
But Poss(EID) is actually defined in terms of EID – it’s the possibility of finding EID after all –, and so, there is an actual, essential, fixed bond between EID and Poss(EID). Hence, EID must also have always actually existed. — Tristan L
However, any idea of any practical significance can be expressed in the ASCII-characters: all novels, all movies, all technological inventions, all theories, all pictures, and all pieces of music. In fact, they can even be expressed in nothing but 1’s and 0’s. For example, this talk that we’re having right now is represented by a long string of 1’s and 0’s. — Tristan L
Thus showing that the space of all possibilites is actual. — Tristan L
With the help of its understander, of course. He will read all the texts, and once he finds a meaningful one whose content is useful, he’ll recognize it as such. For example, just as I recognized that the descriptions of the high-voltage VdG-generator which I read online mean a useful idea (and a very interesting one at that), the understander will see that a description of the VDGG output by the program refers to a useful and interesting idea. — Tristan L
How often are you going to reiterate this point which I’ve been agreeing with all along? — Tristan L
...the possibilities are essentially defined in terms of the ideas, so if the possibilities exist, so must the ideas. — Tristan L
If ideas exist after their discovery, but they can’t be created — Tristan L
This instance is what the artist calls “idea”. However, I think that the idea, unlike the widea, actually is the output of a creative act, which at the same time is an act of discovery of a widea – unless that discovery is deterministic, in which case the idea exists from the start, but only becomes directly seeable later on. — Tristan L
. I don’t understand why Pfhorrest and you unneededly seem to back down from full-fledged platonism, though. — Tristan L
I'm not sure the question of the ontological status of those coordinates is particularly relevant. — Kenosha Kid
. . . mathematicians, and philosophers don’t have to worry that they’ll be out of work soon — Tristan L
Why must the idea have always actually existed? It was always possible to come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean the idea always existed prior to someone coming up with it. It is always possible that I could break my leg, but that doesn't mean that my leg was always broken prior to my breaking it. — Luke
Let's not conflate possible ideas with actual ideas. — Luke
Ideas both can and cannot be invented? That's very confusing. — Luke
Is the thought of the number 3 the same as the idea of the number 3? — Luke
When you think about the number 3, you consider this an instance of inventing the idea of the number 3? — Luke
Your supposed argument assumes the conclusion. — Luke
If it is possible to invent an idea, then it is impossible to invent an idea? Hmm. — Luke
I think this requires much further justification to avoid your clear contradiction. Does Clavius' Law save you from all contradictions? — Luke
I asked you earlier what "essentially linked" meant in your argument — Luke
What does "essentially linked" mean? — Luke
That Poss(EID) and EID are essentially linked means that the wist (essence) of one involves the other, in this case the wist of Poss(EID). Poss(EID) is defined in terms of EID, so that (namely its wist) which makes Poss(EID) what it is has to do with EID. Hence, there’s a wistly link tying Poss(EID) to EID. — Tristan L
I didn't ask you this because I didn't understand it — Luke
I asked you this because I was trying to get you to see that it's problematic. — Luke
Your position is that ideas do (pre-)exist and people discover them. My position is that ideas do not (pre-)exist and people invent them. Your argument can't be that if it is possible to invent an idea then that idea must have always existed! That's the position you're meant to be arguing for, not simply assuming. — Luke
My argument shows, rather than assumes, that if a widea can be invented, then it must have always existed.Your argument can't be that if it is possible to invent an idea then that idea must have always existed! That's the position you're meant to be arguing for, not simply assuming. — Luke
I obviously don't agree that if it is possible to invent an idea then the idea must have always existed. That's absurd. — Luke
It is entirely your own assumption (i.e. "essentially linked") — Luke
It is entirely your own assumption (i.e. "essentially linked") that leads you to the contradiction that if it is possible to invent an idea then it is not possible to invent an idea. — Luke
Again, I do not agree to the bracketed statement — Luke
Therefore, I don't agree to the rest/whole. — Luke
the bracketed statement, which is based on your own assumption. — Luke
Please spell out the part of your argument re: the "fixed bond" or "essential link" between EID and Poss(EID). — Luke
I agree. But Poss(EID) is not EID. — Luke
I certainly do make real and substantial distinction between wideas and associated possibilities, for as I’ve explained above, there are several essentially different possibilities associated with the same widea EID which are all essentially linked to the widea (and to other things, too, e.g. Poss(EID, Alice) to Alice and Poss(EID, Bob) to Bob) and so do their job equally well. On the other hand, the existence of the possibilites is indeed equivalent to the existence of the wideas because the former are defined in terms of the latter.That is, you make no (or only an artificial) distinction between the existence of possible ideas and the existence of actual ideas. — Luke
Your "understander" seems to do a lot of the heavy lifting for your algorithm argument. — Luke
How do they decide which string of symbols represents a new idea? — Luke
Do they require any specialised knowledge or do they learn it as they go? — Luke
Is a long string of 1's and 0's something that your "understander" understands? — Luke
Isn't it possible that an understander could overlook an idea and judge it as a random string of meaningless symbols? — Luke
How does the understander decide what is an idea and what isn't? — Luke
I don't see how an idea exists before anybody thinks of it. I agree that "the fact that Alice might think about EID always actually exists". because what Alice might do or think is whatever it is possible to do or think. But that doesn't mean that she has actually thought of it, or that the idea already exists before she has actually thought of it. Let's not conflate possible ideas with actual ideas. — Luke
If inventing an idea EID is possible, then that possibility Poss(invent EID) must have always existed. Since Poss(invent EID) is essentially linked to EID, it follows that EID must also have always existed. Hence, if it is possible to invent an idea, then the idea must have always existed, and can therefore not be invented. Now apply Clavius's Law (consequentia mirabilis). — Tristan L
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.