ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Ontology of Language: What is a CONCEPT?

Updated on July 3, 2014
A concept is a process i.e. the activity of signals between the neurons in your brain to maintain the state of your thought. Your thought establishes a relation between objects.
A concept is a process i.e. the activity of signals between the neurons in your brain to maintain the state of your thought. Your thought establishes a relation between objects.
Abstract Concept - a relation of other concepts and objects.
Abstract Concept - a relation of other concepts and objects.

INTRODUCTION

Some people have a tough time understanding what a concept is and what constitutes its underlying ontology. Atheists and Mathematicians are particularly known to attribute mysticism, magic and supernatural powers to concepts. They believe that concepts such as ENERGY, MASS, TIME, FIELD and FORCE are some type of mystical incorporeal entities in the Universe; akin to invisible souls or spirits. They specifically ascribe motion to concepts and have them perform phenomena in the Universe, like coming in contact with stars, planets and people, or even swallowing astronauts and clocks. These folks CANNOT tell you what these alleged entities are; they can’t visualize them or even describe them for you. But they will fight tooth & nail to get you to BELIEVE that their alleged conceptual “entities” are real, exist out there in the Universe and they directly affect our daily lives.

Fortunately, most people do understand that concepts are nothing but thought processes which are mediated by the atoms of our brain. Concepts are the fundamental building blocks of not just words, but of our intelligence. Concepts necessarily imply MEANING. You cannot refer to or even use a concept in its proper context without an explicit understanding of what it associates. Without concepts it becomes impossible to invent words and tautological systems, to imagine and visualize objects or to understand anything at all. Everything we understand comes from concepts, and concepts only!

This article will explain in detail what a concept is, why concepts don’t exist, how concepts define words, build languages, facilitate understanding and why they are the basis of our intelligence and a measure of our IQ.




WHAT IS THOUGHT?

Thought is ultimately rooted in the atomic activity of our brain. Atoms interact with each other via surface-to surface contact and signal transmission. But from a higher level of abstraction that we can directly relate to our experience, thought results from a process of mental identification and association. This is exactly what we do even for the most basic of thoughts. Just try to think of anything and attempt to mentally account for the source of that thought. You will realize that you are inevitably identifying entities and associating them. This whole process you’ve just performed is what we call conceptualization. The resulting mental construct or association from this process is what we call thought, idea or concept.

The primary purpose of concepts is for cognition, not for communication, as is usually assumed. Communication is merely the application of utility, not the primary purpose of conception. Cognition precedes communication; obviously, because the necessary precondition of communication is that we understand something before we communicate it, not only with words, but with other methods. By associating entities into concepts, we are able to organize, classify and generalize complex thoughts into simpler and therefore more easily usable cognitive units that take less brain activity to process.

The primary utility of concepts is to allow intelligent beings to understand and communicate their cognitive units to each other. Concepts are therefore used to build languages and to provide beings with a system of cognitive classification and organization, which enables them to acquire intelligence on an unlimited scale.




WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING FOUNDATION OF A CONCEPT?

Unlike images that we can visualize of real standalone entities, concepts cannot be visualized as discrete entities. Why? Because they are the result of atomic activity in the brain, not of standalone entities in our environment. Concepts are associative, they relate objects, and only result from thought. They can only be thought about or referenced by means of the name we assign them. The name is what we call a “word”. Words are labels for concepts; they label the explicit association between objects so the specific association can be referenced as a whole during communication.

Concepts lighten the load on memory and enhance our ability to communicate. For example, at the airport when asked what you have in your suitcase, you never answer with a detailed list of items: 2 jackets, 3 pairs of shoes, 4 T-shirts, pants, the Bible, The God Delusion, magazines, documents, and so forth. More likely your answer will be "clothes" and "reading material". This is an example of how we can use concepts to abstract individual related entities into categories.

Without a doubt, concepts are the underlying basis of all our thought processes. They are rooted in our ability to form languages, communicate and comprehend not just words, but complex abstractions which are invented on a daily basis. All words are first and foremost concepts of language, known as: lexical concepts. Furthermore, all words have an intrinsic ontological basis that can be resolved and grouped into two distinct categories: OBJECTS or CONCEPTS. We rationally justify this ontological basis in detail later; but first, we must understand the foundation of the word “concept”. And to do so, we need to define for our readers some key terms, specifically: object and concept.

Since we are using the word “object” as a KEY TERM which underlies the basis of our whole discussion, we had better be able to unambiguously define this term which makes or breaks our argument, right? Otherwise, how will the reader understand in no uncertain terms what we mean by object?

Please visit the following article to understand what an object is:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-an-Object


Intelligent beings are a direct product of their environment. Even their thoughts are a direct product of their environment because anything they think about has a relative reference to something else in their environment. There is no thought that can be conceived by any being (human, alien or even God) that can be declared as absolute; i.e. not in relation to something within the context of their environment.

Consider for example, the concept ‘up’. The instant you think of it you automatically associate it with the concept ‘down’ in reference to a surface and an observer. Thinking of the concept ‘running’ automatically associates a being that performs this action on a surface. The point of this is to understand that we can’t even conceive of any concept or imagine anything without referencing associations between objects. Those who disagree or those who believe in “absolutes” are welcome to post their reasoned argument in the comments section. The instant you conceive of any thought/idea, you have automatically invoked a minimum of 2 objects with some type of association between them - whether you realized it or not. Absolutes are impossible to conceive (and that’s why there is NO absolute truth).




HOW DO WE DEFINE "CONCEPT"?

Concepts are the thought associations we establish with entities in our environment for the purposes of:


a) Ascribing meaning to these associations.

b) Facilitating understanding.

c) Applying utility to these associations (i.e. language, math, logic, technology, business, etc.)


Before we formulate a rational and unambiguous definition for ‘concept’ that can be used consistently, let’s get a basic impression at what some popular dictionaries have to say. Note that we will not use a dictionary or reference for the purposes of forcing it down people’s throats as an Argument from Authority. Only those who can’t understand and justify their definitions and arguments commit such fallacies, right?

Oxford Dictionary: An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities.”

Webster Dictionary: “An abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.”

The Free Dictionary: A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.”


They are pretty much on the right track but they need to clean up their painful ambiguities (i.e. Fallacy of Equivocation) and eliminate synonyms (i.e. rhetoric) to make their definitions crisp, clear and to the point. Like Einstein said: even a bar maid should be able to understand our definitions. Dictionaries are written by English graduate students and usually list definitions in quick & loose ordinary speech with ambiguity, rhetoric and inconsistency. Obviously we need to come up with a rational definition which can be understood by anyone, even a shoe shine boy.

Looking at the key terms in the definitions above, we can understand that a concept is a thought process (i.e. idea) that is dependent upon establishing an association between objects (i.e. entities, instances, occurrences). This is unavoidable. In fact, it is impossible to conceive of an idea which does not have any associations (i.e. corresponds, generalizes, infers) with some objects. And of course this makes sense because as humans, our thoughts and our words are a direct product of our natural environment (i.e. reality/existence) which only consists of objects.

As an example, when we invented the concept “surfing”, this notion tacitly associated the objects ‘water’, ‘surfboard’ and ‘human’ in a dynamic relation. These three objects are directly inter-related because each performs its own specific activity to collectively mediate this phenomenon we call “surfing”. Even though it may not be readily apparent to us, this is how people invent words in all languages. As concepts, words are nothing more than relations between specific objects which will convey our intended meaning.

Now that we have a clear understanding of what a concept is we have all the ammunition required to rationally define ‘concept’ in no ambiguous terms.


Concept: A relation between two or more objects. (Synonym: idea, thought, notion, cogitation, conception, conceit)


REMEMBER: All words are lexical concepts. What they reference may either be an object or a concept. The concept is our fundamental unit of understanding as this is the only way we can give meaning to the syntactic labels of language we call “words”. Furthermore, the concept is the fundamental unit of intelligence, as discussed later.




ALL CONCEPTS ARE DEFINED

Without concepts there are no thoughts or words, much less language. Any form of cognition or communication becomes impossible. Even sign-language (arm/hand movements), smoke signals (smoke patterns), Morse Code (audible sequences), caveman grunts (audible sequences), etc. are all based on concepts (i.e. relations between objects).


Q: Other than concepts, what do all the various modes of communication have in common?

A: MEANING! All concepts necessarily have meaning that is derived from the explicit relationship between the invoked objects.


Without the conveyance of MEANING, what would be the purpose of words, sign-language, smoke signals, Morse Code, cavemen grunts, etc? Would we do this stuff to please the gods? If so, they must have meaning then; it is inescapable! Even the word “concept” has a meaning.

Believe it or not, there are proponents of the claim that words don’t have and should not have any meaning whatsoever. No, it’s not just the patients in the asylum....I am talking about actual folks who are out there advertizing their ignorance in society and on the Internet. They don’t realize it, but their position is self-refuting because they used “words” to convey their expressive desired meaning to us. They can’t have it both ways. Regardless, a concept without meaning is an oxymoron and those who perpetuate such nonsense are obviously morons. I see some people laughing, but please.... have some respect and political correctness for these simple-minded ignoramuses; nobody deserves to be ridiculed for no legitimate reason.


Since all concepts convey meaning, it goes without saying that concepts must be defined in no ambiguous terms. Words with multiple meanings are committing one of the Fallacies of Ambiguity, specifically, the Fallacy of Equivocation!


Sure, there are words which have acquired various meanings in ordinary speech, like the word “band”, for example. This is fine for ordinary speech and colloquialisms. But the proponent of a critically-reasoned argument is responsible for defining his key terms (which underlie his argument) in NO ambiguous terms – equivocation is not allowed. This means that his key terms must only have one defined meaning that is used consistently in the context of his own argument. Otherwise not even the author will understand what he is talking about if his terms have various irreconcilable meanings. Eliminating ambiguity is a very simple task. Laziness is no excuse in academics, right?

Definitions must be rational, clear, precise and to the point; i.e. they must fully capture what is conveyed by the concept they represent. They must capture, either explicitly or implicitly, all the relations between the objects associated by the concept in question. Only then will the definition be rational and unambiguous. Only then can one use it consistently in their critically-reasoned argument. As an example, look at the definition of the word “concept” above and compare it to the sloppy ambiguous definitions provided by most dictionaries. No wonder there has been a lot of confusion over what constitutes an object and a concept. No wonder Atheists and Mathematicians don’t understand what a concept is or whether concepts exist as standalone entities in reality.

When we don’t define words unambiguously we inject much confusion, if not mysticism into our imprecise meanings. This allows the proponent of an argument to play Double-Dutch with his intentionally loose key terms. His intentions are disingenuous. He aims to deceive, not to elucidate. He builds his argument with handy dualities used as sleights-of-hand to confuse you by pushing forward various irreconcilable positions in his argument. His goal is to persuade you to accept his argument from various points of entry. This is no different than what the Sophists did in Ancient Greece with their tricks of circular logic, dualities, contradictions, rhetoric, ambiguities/equivocation, reification, etc. Their aim was to confuse, deceive and persuade. Those who don’t define their key terms are using the same linguistic tricks, mental gymnastics and obfuscations to deceive you. Obviously, intellectual discussions will not be influenced by such circus shows.

Regardless of whether one’s usage of concepts is knowingly or inadvertently dishonest, they are forewarned that it will be extremely easy to expose all their sophistry in detail. These tricks are old news.....over 2500 years old!




WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING ONTOLOGY OF A CONCEPT?

Naturally, the critical reader will ask: What objects are responsible in mediating the relation of the lexical concept “concept” or of any other lexical concept in and of itself?

Since any lexical concept, like “concept”, is indeed a concept in and of itself, then it is a relation between objects. This whole abstraction of the underlying inter-related objects is what we collectively refer to as a CONCEPT. The concept is the referent (i.e. that which a word refers to) of the word unto itself. We say that such words fall into the category of ‘concepts’ as opposed to ‘objects’.

The objects that a lexical concept relates are what mediates the brain activity which we usually call THOUGHT. Specifically, the concept (i.e. mental thought) of any word ontologically relates the neurons in our brains and the mediation of signals between them. It is this synchronous motion of neurons (and ultimately atoms) which mediate this phenomenon or state in our brain that we call concept, idea, thought, etc. Since our definition of concept was rational and unambiguous, we were able to use it consistently onto itself without ambiguities or contradictions.




IS IT POSSIBLE FOR CONCEPTS TO EXIST?

Our environment is the Universe which is only comprised of objects that have standalone physical presence and are said to exist. Since a concept is an association between objects, it is crystal clear that it is impossible for associations or relations to be standalone entities. Hence, it is impossible for concepts to exist. The individual objects that are being related can be said to exist as long as they are not abstract (i.e. concepts). But it is impossible for a concept to exist because its ontological primacy is not that of discreteness; i.e. that of a standalone entity. Its ontological primacy is that of an action (verb); i.e. that of a process of inter-atomic signal transmission. Verbs don’t exist. Only objects exist; and it is objects that mediate verbs, right?

I mean, there are no concepts running around wreaking havoc or getting chased by dogs, right? And there are no concepts in the Universe grabbing the Earth and moving it around the Sun like a carousel, right? And there are no concepts acting like vacuum cleaners swallowing light, planets, astronauts and clocks; despite what some with a wild imagination will have you believe, right?

You see, neither God nor alien nor man can manufacture concepts. And they certainly don’t acquire length, width and height in zero-time and pop out of the void and into reality, right? Intelligent beings can only think of concepts, assign words to them, define them, understand and apply them.




SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR vs CONTEXTUAL GRAMMAR

Some folks may have forgotten the Syntactical and Contextual Grammar constructs of language they were taught in Grammar School. Sentences in linguistic grammars are context-sensitive and thus have two stages of grammatical verification: syntax and context. Once we verify that the syntax conforms to the syntactical rules of grammar, we ascribe meaning to the sentence using the analytical phase of contextual grammar.


1. SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR - The initial parsing phase of sentential syntax that ensures sentences comply with the syntax rules of grammar; i.e. qualifying nouns with adjectives, verbs with adverbs, etc, etc.

2. CONTEXTUAL GRAMMAR - This final parsing phase of sentences renders comprehension by ascribing meaning to words and clauses while maintaining the contextual domain of their referents.


Despite these and other linguistic issues which underlie the primacy of our understanding of words and sentences, there are some out there who will vehemently oppose them:

“Dude, you sound just like my teacher. This semantic stuff is for educational purposes only. This is all unnecessary and pedantic grammatical problematizing. I am experienced enough to guarantee you that I KNOW how to interpret and understand anything. LOL, you’re such a tool.”


Hmmm....unnecessary and pedantic grammatical problematizing, huh?

a) Do you know how to interpret the Bible? If so, why haven’t you enlightened the 30,000+ sects of Christian denominations out there who still haven’t resolved the issue?

b) Do you know how to interpret the many theories of truth? After 3000 years, Philosophers are still arguing on what truth is. Can you enlighten them on the correct theory?

c) Do you know how to interpret the 6 irreconcilable hypotheses of gravity (i.e. 0D gravitons, waves, warped space, force, field, energy)? Which is the correct one in reality?

d) Do you know how to interpret the proceedings of a murder trial and guarantee that sophistry or abuses in language will not persuade you as a member of the jury to put an innocent person behind bars? After all, don’t the members of the jury draw conclusions from their own personal interpretation of the statements presented?

e) Can you guarantee that every person out there will interpret statements in the EXACT SAME way as you?


Clearly, some people lack the ability to think and reason the ultra-basics. I didn’t know this opposition to reason was out there until I ran into these folks online. If they can’t even identify the self-refuting remarks in their own statements, would you trust these clowns to be the jury in YOUR murder trial if you ever get wrongfully accused? It really doesn’t take many of these clowns to lock you up forever....only one will do! But these lost souls underscore all the points in this article. I welcome such statements from clowns because they die at their point of conception. Their bellyaching is not an argument.

The critical issue with grammar and language is that of comprehension. Some will make wild claims that they don’t need to understand words, definitions and grammar in order to understand a sentence or to even write a Physics article. Isn’t that a self-refuting statement? Without clear and precise language there is no understanding to be had, even for the author of the argument. It is the proper use of concepts in grammar which allow us to present the proper context of our argument before the audience. Purposeful abuses in language have only one purpose: to deceive. Don’t whine and complain that you don’t understand your own argument when cornered. Clean up your linguistic failures and it will be crystal clear to you.

In the sections that follow we explore how to evaluate the “referent” of a concept for the purposes of determining its ontological usage in a sentence.




WORD ONTOLOGY: ALL WORDS RESOLVE TO EITHER AN OBJECT OR A CONCEPT

All words can be grouped into two distinct categories by way of their resolved ontology: OBJECTS or CONCEPTS. But how do we accomplish this?


Q: Since all words are first and foremost lexical concepts, how do we reference a rock in our sentences? Wouldn’t the rock be a concept?

A: No! This issue is resolved objectively by way of ontology. Opinion plays no role here. It is the ontology of the referent (i.e. that which a word refers to) which determines whether the word in question will be categorized as either an object or a concept.


The word “rock”, in and of itself, is obviously a lexical concept. We already explained previously that atomic brain activity is the referent of any lexical concept, like “concept” or “rock”; i.e. the referent is a verb or process (i.e. a concept!) That’s why all words are concepts in and of themselves. And this is what our brain does when we parse a sentence from a syntactical point of view, as sentential syntax strictly deals with concepts. But we don’t derive the meaning of words and sentences from syntax. Surely, there must be objects out there like rocks, planets and stars which are not just petty linguistic syntax of our brain activity. These are objects which must have their own physical presence because they exist, right?

Of course, in order to consistently resolve this issue we need to consider such words in their proper context. This means that we must evaluate the REFERENT of the word in question (i.e. “rock”) as this is what ultimately allows us to resolve its underlying ontological context. And this is exactly what we did previously when we evaluated the referent of the lexical concept “concept” as a process of atomic brain activity; i.e. a concept! But in our current case the referent of the word “rock” does not resolve to a concept or a process of brain activity. It specifically resolves to a standalone object.

Why?

Because all objects have shape! This is the only objective criterion which can be consistently used to determine whether the referent of a word is either an object or a concept (i.e. a relation or process). When we evaluate the word in question, we ask:


Q: “Does the Ontological Context of its Referent have shape?”

If so, then the word in question resolves to an object; otherwise it’s a concept. Since a rock (i.e. referent) has shape, then the word “rock” is placed in the category we call: OBJECTS.


Words in any language, even in God’s language will, without question, fall in one of two categories: OBJECT or CONCEPT. There is no other option, ever!

Why?

Because shape is the only objective (i.e. observer-independent) property that can be used to distinguish between objects and concepts by way of their ontology. There is no other property which is intrinsic to the object itself. Any other word you can imagine which doesn’t fall in the category of object is a concept because concepts specifically refer to the process of brain activity; i.e. the state or phenomenon we call “thought”. Hence concepts are not standalone entities in reality. The Moon was an object with shape before any being evolved to sense it and give an opinion on the issue. Hence the Moon is a standalone entity independent of observers and their thoughts. Of course, there are those who will disagree and I welcome them in the comments section.

Linguistic grammars are context-sensitive and it is this Contextual Grammar phase of language which elucidates the context and meaning of words from the ontological context of their referent. We use the Ontological Context of the Referent to OBJECTIVELY resolve whether a word can be classified as either an ‘object’ or a ‘concept’. Opinion or guessing plays no role here.

Whether you realize it or not, you are mentally performing this contextual phase of grammar each time you read and parse a sentence. This is how you are able to place all words and phrases in their proper context and extract the intended meaning of a sentence. If the meaning is ambiguous or not what the author intended, then it’s the author’s job to remedy these issues and convey the meaning he originally intended. This is not the job of the audience, right? Evaluating the Ontological Context of the Referents is the only objective method by which the author can guarantee his sentences to be free from ambiguities of ontology.

In the following section we will explore the construct of Contextual Grammar with an example and explain how to avoid the pitfall of the Fallacy of Reification.




FALLACY OF REIFICATION: CONVERTING CONCEPTS INTO OBJECTS

Most of the confusion we have with words revolves around maintaining the proper context of our concepts when ascribing meaning to a sentence. Some are oblivious to this phase of contextual grammar when ascribing verbs to syntactical nouns that are pure concepts. They sometimes unwittingly convert a CONCEPT to an OBJECT; thus making the sentence irrational. Since we use concepts to extract meaning within the scope of a sentence, we must be prudent of contextual consistency to avoid this common pitfall of language: Fallacy of Reification. Those who fall victim to this fallacy don’t understand the difference between a noun of Syntactical Grammar and a noun of Contextual Grammar. The difference may not only be huge, but also fatal to your sentences.

Reification is the irrational conversion of a concept into an object. For example, the conversion of the concept of “love” into an alleged entity which can move mountains is irrational and most certainly, impossible!


Consider the following sentence: “After the contractor received his payment, his obligation flew out the window.”


1. In syntactical grammar, the word ‘obligation’ is a NOUN OF SYNTAX, only. As a noun of syntax it is a concept because the syntactical-correctness phase of grammar deals exclusively with concepts. There is no contextual resolution here.

2. In contextual grammar, the word ‘obligation’ does not convey the meaning of a noun. It conveys the meaning of a VERB; i.e. the course of action which the contractor is legally bound to. This means that ‘obligation’ can no longer be treated as a noun, as we are past the syntactical-correctness phase. In the final, contextual phase of grammar, ‘obligation’ explicitly refers to an action (i.e. concept) which must be performed by the contractor. This is what is expected of the contractor in reality - his course of action. There is no noun of reality called ‘obligation’ which literally emanates from the contractor and flies out the window, right?


The above sentence is using ORDINARY SPEECH to figuratively tell us that after the contractor was paid, he ceased to abide by his ‘obligation’ (i.e. verb). This sentence cannot be taken literally because it applies the verb (flew) to the concept (obligation). Concepts don’t fly like birds. In fact, concepts do not exist, so you cannot ascribe motion to them as it doesn’t make sense.

The sentence is NOT telling us that the syntactical noun ‘obligation’ magically transformed (i.e. reification) into a noun of reality (i.e. object) and literally flew out the window, like a bird flies out the window. During the contextual grammar phase, the ontological context of the referent of the word ‘obligation’ resolves to a concept, not an object. Nobody in their right mind would convert the concept ‘obligation’ to an object (noun of reality) and ascribe motion to it. Obviously, sentences which literally ascribe motion to concepts are irrational. But there are people out there making these hasty mistakes without even realizing it because they don’t understand the object vs concept ontology of the referent.

The point of all this is to prevent our sentences from erroneously introducing magical “spirits” (i.e. concepts) into reality when it is impossible for them to be there. Reality (i.e. existence) is comprised of objects which exist. In Contextual Grammar they are known as the “nouns of reality”. All the nouns of reality are unequivocally, objects! Objects are the mediators which perform actions unto other objects; i.e. “the bulldozer moved the mountain”: objects (bulldozer, mountain), concept (moved). The concept “love” cannot move a mountain. There are no concepts in reality. Concepts do not exist. Not even God Almighty can make them exist, much less a sentence which ascribes motion to them.




WHAT IS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT?

An abstract concept is a higher-order concept which encompasses an underlying relation of objects and concepts in perhaps a nested, hierarchical or other type of pre-defined association.


Q: Why do we need such complexities as abstract concepts?

A: Because they are useful for invoking ideas such as categories, hierarchies, links, sets, schemas, axioms, etc. for the purposes of generalizing, establishing complex relationships and solving problems in tautological domains. They are widely used in applications such organizational-type disciplines, mathematics, logic, technology, medicine, engineering, computer science, etc.


Abstraction is a method of expanding a being’s intelligence by reducing the number of entities the being needs to associate (and memorize) in order to convey more complex ideas and meanings. It is essentially a systematic means to an unlimited integration of cognitive data into our memory. By implementing abstract concepts we can represent condensations of knowledge and understanding. They facilitate quicker understanding by reducing cognitive labor through the process of abstraction.

As stated previously, our thoughts and our words are the product of our environment. But they can also be the product of abstract concepts, like the many tautologies that we invent. For example, we invented the concept “infer” to be used in the context of abstract concepts such as logic and mathematics. In this case, the concept “infer” relates a set of premises (abstract concept) to a person (object) who performs the action of inferring (verb/concept) a conclusion (abstract concept).

As another example, we can conceive of the abstract concept called “musical instrument” which relates the concepts “wind instrument” (flute, trumpet) and “string instrument” (guitar, violin), each of which is a relation between the specified objects.




HOW DO INTELLIGENT BEINGS USE CONCEPTS TO DEVELOP LANGUAGE?

All intelligent beings in the Universe invent their language directly from the bounty of their natural environment. As we explained earlier, any grunt, sign-language, smoke signal or word they utter will necessarily associate at least 2 objects from their environment. Only objects exist in the Universe because only objects can possibly have physical presence.

Whenever intelligent beings evolve in the Universe and become more sophisticated (i.e. begin to communicate ideas to each other) they develop languages. How do they go about doing this? In two simple steps:


1) They first look at all the objects in nature, point to them and utter a word to name them. Remember, this is exactly how it was done in Biblical Times when God brought the animals before Adam who pointed at each animal and gave it a name for the record:

Genesis 2:19-20 “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.”

Looks like God is a rational guy. I mean, even God realizes that objects can only be named....NOT defined! Yep, the old man knows that it is impossible to define an object because it is a standalone entity - it has no meaning in and of itself. Those who disagree will have to explain how objects have otherwise acquired intrinsic self-meanings. Was it from God? These folks are unwittingly making the same argument that Banana-Man Ray Comfort made: God made the banana with meaning for us; i.e. to conveniently fit into our hand and into our mouth. It even has a protective wrapper to keep it fresh!


Q: So where do we get meaning from? What is it exactly that gives meaning to words if not individual objects?

A: A word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, whose meaning consists of the associations we establish with objects. Standalone entities have no way of giving meaning to the words which reference them. Words like “rock” resolve to a referent which explicitly has the ontology of a standalone object. Meaning is only obtained by associating at least 2 objects in a relation that is defined for its applicability to some purposeful utility.


2) After we name the entities of our environment we have a collection of objects that can be used as referents in our sentences. For example: In the sentence “The ball fell to the floor”, the words “ball” and “floor” are referents to objects in our environment.

Furthermore, these objects of our environment are also used in associations which explicitly define and provide some intended meaning, like a type of motion. In the above example, the word “fell” is a dynamic concept which describes and gives meaning to the relation between 2 objects, specifically, the motion between the ball and the floor. It is impossible to define the word “fell” without associating at least 2 objects. For example, you CANNOT define “fell” by simply referencing the ball by itself without any other relation. You cannot even imagine a lone ball falling in a Universe that is comprised of a single lonely ball. Even the dynamic concepts of energy, mass, time, field or force cannot even be imagined or conceptualized on a lonely object. Not even God Almighty can conceptualize them! Now you should be able to understand exactly why ENERGY, MASS, TIME, FIELD and FORCE do not exist, they never have....and they never will. It is Atheists & Mathematicians who believe these wordsto represent incorporeal entities akin to invisible spirits. Why? Because they don't understand the difference between an object and a concept!

During our initial conception of these associations between the objects in question, we can easily visualize how we link objects and how they relate to each other as a whole, in order to provide the intended meaning to our concept. This is how each and every concept is conceived and defined. There are no exceptions. Learning to speak does not consist of memorizing sounds. This is what a parrot learns to “speak”; just sounds. Learning consists of grasping meanings by associating the referents of words, i.e., the objects that words denote in reality. This is how we understand words and learn their proper usage in sentences.


And that’s how we’ve built languages and other systems of thought, like mathematics, logic, the legal system, governments, societies, etc. All words from every languages are concepts i.e. relations between 2 or more objects. For example...husband & wife are concepts (relations between 2 humans, like Adam & Eve). Running is a concept (a relation between the legs of a living being and the ground).

We invent new concepts every single day because of our necessity to evolve our society, education, technology, etc. Without question, this is exactly what any intelligent species does. They invent new concepts, define them unambiguously, and apply them toward the communication of new ideas or for solving problems in some domain of utility.

NOTE: Meaning is what WE explicitly define in the relation within each concept. Concepts don’t magically self-acquire meaning nor are they devoid of meaning, despite what some people will have you believe.




CONCEPTS ARE THE UNDERLYING BASIS OF OUR INTELLIGENCE

It is inescapable....you cannot understand or communicate anything without first performing the following 3 steps:

1) Conceiving of concepts.

2) Understanding their definition and what they associate.

3) Understanding how to apply them in their proper context.


This is the underling basis of our intelligence, concepts! Without objects....and without associations between them....we have no concepts....and no words! This means that the concept is our fundamental unit of intelligence. And indeed, you will find that this is exactly what an IQ test measures and scores you on: how many concepts you understand well enough to utilize in solving problems within a given time. That is all there is to an IQ test. There is no magic, mysticism or prestige. Are you not satisfied with your IQ score of 100? No problem....just study up on your concepts, practise solving problems and you can score 190+ if you are so inclined. There are no God-gifted geniuses or super-intelligent beings out there.

Please visit the following article for a detailed analysis of the concept of intelligence:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-INTELLIGENCE-Is-Intellect-LIMITED-or-UNLIMITED




CONCLUSION

Concepts are your friends, so be nice to them: If you use them as KEY TERMS in your arguments, do them justice and unambiguously define them. Don’t wait for a member of the audience to showcase your contradictions and ridicule you. This is the only way you can demonstrate to the audience that you are smart enough to understand your own argument. Otherwise you have committed the Fallacy of Equivocation!

Don’t ascribe verbs to objects otherwise you have committed the Fallacy of Reification! Ensure that you always resolve the Ontological Context of the Referent.

It goes without saying that nobody can argue against the importance of consistency in concepts, definitions, semantics, grammar and contextual meaning. Those who disagree are declaring war against language, human understanding and rationality. But they are welcomed wholeheartedly to post in the comments section a rational justification for their position. If they cannot justify their venom, then they are merely protesting against rationality because it destroys their Religion.

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • profile image

    Jeslyn 2 years ago

    Phoaemennl breakdown of the topic, you should write for me too!

  • profile image

    NephilimFree 2 years ago

    Well done. Atheism is a contorted denial of reality. They are almost Platonic in their absurd ideas of emergent properties.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Malaysian Ladyboy Moh, you always wait for a few months to pass and then you come here asking the same questions over and over which have already been answered in detail for you hundreds of times. Enough trolling.

    I am asking you kindly to stop trolling here. There are lots of places for you to troll. Maybe you're not wanted there either. But you are certainly not wanted here. Goodbye!

  • profile image

    Mohammad 3 years ago

    Hi Fatfist! It's been awhile.

    Can the term "absolute" applied to "nothing" (absolute nothing)?

  • profile image

    Mohammad 3 years ago

    Hi Fatfist,

    Sorry for the double post. I have read all your articles but still I have some difficulties with some of it. I am not trolling because I am not trying to make argument with you, obviously. But I am still learning.

    What are your thoughts about my question? Btw I am just asking.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    If God can give you some eyes, maybe you can go back a few posts and read my thoughts on your question. Stop trolling Mohammad. I don't have time for your crap. I have important Scientific matters to attend to....

  • profile image

    Mohammad 3 years ago

    Hi Fatfist,

    Yeah I hope Monk will give me an another chance to join RSM. Ok, now back to our topic. What are your thoughts about my question?

  • profile image

    Mohammad 3 years ago

    So can you give some thoughts about my question?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammad, if you got banned from the most irrational pseudo-Religious group on the Internet; i.e. Religious Scatology & Technology,....a place for brain-dead mentally ill nutcases that speak in gibberish and contradictions....then what makes you think you have what it takes to talk rationally in the only real Science group on facebook: Rational Scientific Method.

    Perhaps you can make your case to Monk about that, it's not my group.

  • profile image

    Mohammad 3 years ago

    Hi Fatfist,

    I just want an opinion from you regarding my questions. I don't have any intention to argue with you by the way.

    So, can we return to the topic? I hope you can add me back to Rational Scientific Method group.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammad....you guys must have some really strong psychedelic drugs in Malaysia. I mean....Holy Sweet Lord Jesus that brought me into the world… I wish I could speak the nonsense coming out of your pie hole….like: “as if the EM ropes are absolute nothing……Is it finite or infinite…..infinite life…..arrived at an area where there are absolutely nothing”.

    Wow, just WOW!

    Alas, Jesus only created me to be very boring and just talk rationally. Thanks for nothing, Jesus….you fu**er!

    I just wish I had the brain damage you have. I wouldn’t have any worries or cares in my life as nobody would take me seriously after they see that I can’t possibly have a single serious brain cell in my head!

    What a sweet existence you have, Mohammad. I really envy you. I wish I could be YOU! I’ll tell you what…..I am going to the Dollar Store today to buy a wig and a make-shift costume so I can dress up like you and do some cos play. You should consider that an honor to you!

  • profile image

    Mohammad 3 years ago

    Hi Fatfist, its been awhile I don't have conversation with you.

    In Gaede's Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory, how can the EM ropes superimpose each other as if the EM ropes are absolute nothing? How about the Thread? Is it finite or infinite? Assuming if there is a man with an infinite life or an immortal man, if he keeps going and going through the Universe, will he eventually arrived at an area where there are absolutely nothing? Or will he still moving through the EM ropes and Threads?

    If there are any mistakes, please corrected it.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "I don't have my own definitions yet."

    Thank you for being honest for once in your life.

    Now please.....just go away and don't come back to post anything else ever again unless you have YOUR definitions for the following terms:

    object, shape, concept, exist, space, location

    No more discussion on any issue until then. Bye!

  • profile image

    Mohammad Raymond 3 years ago

    Hi Fatfist,

    I don't have my own definitions yet. But isn't location is just a concept? If we think critically, objects don't have location but only shape to exist. Thoughts?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    I don't have private discussions where people can HIDE their posts from the audience. All YOUR definitions must be made public here. No exceptions.

    Show us your WEAPONS, Mohammad....please!

  • profile image

    Mohammad Raymond 3 years ago

    Hmm. Hey Fatfist, I think I should add you on Facebook so we can have more conversation. Can you please unblock me?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    I have exposed my whole arsenal of weapons. You already know what your opposition has to defend himself.

    But you and your ilk are nothing but are lame chickens. Always running scared in your life without any balls to face me head on and either destroy my weapons....or overpower me with yours!

    Go back to your Religious Scatology & Technology group, Mohammad....a group for lame fools full of estrogen. You have no weapons at all....just here to troll.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammad.....a or b. No more posting here unless you choose YOUR OWN weapons in this discussion.

    Again...your options are:

    object: that which has shape

    shape: a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding.

    concept: a relation between two or more objects

    exist: object with location

    space: that which lacks shape

    .

    OR, you can post whatever definition you like. At Fatfist Inc, we NEVER force definitions down people's throats. But we do expect them to have the balls to choose their OWN definitions as THEIR weapons for the battle.

    What WEAPONS do you have for the FIGHT, Mohammad? Please post them in your next post here!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “because you keep calling your definitions as mine.”

    Ok, spamming, acting like an idiot, posting BS and other garbage here I can tolerate.

    BUT LYING I WILL NOT TOLERATE!!!

    Here are YOUR definitions which I asked you before. Read the previous comments where I explicitly asked you for YOUR definitions and this is what YOU posted:

    Mohd: “exist: object with location”

    Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

    Now you are LYING by claiming these are not your definitions. This is your last option:

    a) Either admit for the record that these are YOUR definitions, or

    b) Post YOUR definitions of these 4 terms: object, exist, shape, concept

    Failure to do will get you banned here. I tolerate everything except LIARS!

  • profile image

    Mohammad Raymond 3 years ago

    Hey again Fatfist,

    "And you do realize that asking the same answered questions is called spamming too? Ha ha....zero arguments.....just spam!"

    I repeat those questions because all of your responses aren't really addressing my questions because you keep calling your definitions as mine.

    "Thank you for giving us your defn of ‘shape’, mohd. Now let’s test your defn to answer your previous question and see if the term ‘shape’ has any DEPENDENCY to the term ‘exist’.

    Since a lone object is bounded from its immediate surrounding and not blended and vanishing within…. then as per YOUR definition, a lone object has shape and that’s the only property is has.

    And the fact that an object has shape, speaks nothing of its existence. Existence and shape have nothing to do with each other as they are two independent concepts, as shown in YOUR definitions.

    a) Shape certainly does NOT depend on existence, as shown in YOUR definition above!

    b) Existence necessitates a location, as shown in YOUR definition above!

    Even a square has shape, but doesn’t exist as it has no location. Only the paper and ink exist as they both have location.

    CONGRATULATIONS: Your definition of ‘exist’ and ‘shape’ are RATIONAL and pass ALL THE TESTS with flying colors!"

    Remember this is your own definitions, Fatfist. And does Mother Nature depend on our unambiguous definitions or rational assumptions or explanations? You seems like you keep treating your definitions as mine whereas actually it's yours.

    "You should be very proud of yourself, Mohd. Can I please buy you a beer? I will be in northern Europe in a few months, would you like to meet up? Lunch, dinner and all you can drink on me!"

    I'm currently in Rome, so if you're really wanna meet me well it shouldn't be a problem, my friend. About the lunch, dinner and stuffs no thanks. :)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammad, you already answered your questions with your foot in your mouth, remember? Here's the post to refresh your memory.

    Mohd: “exist: object with location”

    Mohd: " If it [a lone object] can't exist, why does it still retains its shape?”

    Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

    Thank you for giving us your defn of ‘shape’, mohd. Now let’s test your defn to answer your previous question and see if the term ‘shape’ has any DEPENDENCY to the term ‘exist’.

    Since a lone object is bounded from its immediate surrounding and not blended and vanishing within…. then as per YOUR definition, a lone object has shape and that’s the only property is has.

    And the fact that an object has shape, speaks nothing of its existence. Existence and shape have nothing to do with each other as they are two independent concepts, as shown in YOUR definitions.

    a) Shape certainly does NOT depend on existence, as shown in YOUR definition above!

    b) Existence necessitates a location, as shown in YOUR definition above!

    Even a square has shape, but doesn’t exist as it has no location. Only the paper and ink exist as they both have location.

    CONGRATULATIONS: Your definition of ‘exist’ and ‘shape’ are RATIONAL and pass ALL THE TESTS with flying colors!

    You should be very proud of yourself, Mohd. Can I please buy you a beer? I will be in northern Europe in a few months, would you like to meet up? Lunch, dinner and all you can drink on me!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    And you do realize that asking the same answered questions is called spamming too? Ha ha....zero arguments.....just spam!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “Are you deleting my comment again?”

    That’s a very nice trick you got going and I LOVE it because you don’t fool anyone! Keep complaining about all your comments being deleted (even though I am answering them) because that’s the ONLY recourse that YOU and YOUR Priests who banned you from their forum have against the butt-kicking that you clowns are getting here..ha!

    Please…..just keep complaining about your undeleted comments getting deleted since you can’t address my responses nor contradict anything here….LOL!! Too funny.

    Now, let’s address your next undeleted-deleted comment:

    Mohd: “How can you relate an object to nothing?”

    I give up. Please tell me and the audience how? Do we sing your Willy-Bum-Bum song first? It is YOU and YOUR goofballs that explicitly relate nothing to nothing and things to themselves (i.e. A is A) which are clear contradictions.

    Who said we are relating an object to “nothing”? LOL!!! We went through this BEFORE…..read the previous posts….REPETITION and WHINING that your undeleted comments are deleted is NOT an argument. Ha ha ha!

    I will reference you (for the 10 the time) to the article that defines ‘shape’ and YOUR agreement with that definition:

    http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Physics-What-is-SH...

    Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

    There is NO object, NO space and NO nothing mentioned in that definition. You are just pulling these terms out of YOUR ass to STRAWMAN the definition since you have NO argument at all….Ha!. Are you on crack cocaine again, Mohd?

    And if you ever read that article someday, you will understand that a triangle has shape, but there is no space (i.e. nothing) around a triangle (like there is between your ears!) because the triangle is an abstract entity that is conceived, much like your 2D Religious garbage.

    But a lonely object in the Universe is 3D and has space surrounding it and it has shape without even an observer (of course, since it’s the only object). And an observer comes along and simply uses his brain (hopefully you’ll get one of these some day) to relate what is bounded from the immediate surrounding (i.e. no mention of objects, space or nothing at all) and gives this relation the name: shape! Now the observer can define object as “that which has shape”.

    See….just follow the definition of ‘shape’ and you won't embarrass yourself with your foot in your mouth. And of course, NO objects, NO space and NO nothing were harmed in the making of this definition!

    Did you ever make it past Junior Kindergarten, Mohammad Raymond?? I hear prostitution is rampant in your neck of the woods. Couldn’t yo momma afford to send you to school, even though she was working hard...or hardly working?

  • profile image

    Mohammad Raymond 3 years ago

    Hi Fatfist,

    Are you deleting my comment again? Hmm. Please, Fatfist.

    "Shape is a CONCEPT. We conceive this term by indeed conceptualizing two possible objects... 1) what is bounded... And 2) the background

    environment..."

    How can you relate an object to nothing?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “That's also mean that shape is depend on at least two objects. Thoughts?”

    Shape is a CONCEPT. We conceive this term by indeed conceptualizing two possible objects….1) what is bounded….and 2) the background environment. If this conceptualization is possible without contradictions, then we just conceptualized shape.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohd: “So if a standalone object can't exist, then it can't retain its shape. “

    Mohd: “Yes, it still have its shape”

    Great! You finally see the error of YOUR ways! You’re one step closer to rationality.

    Mohd: “but you also said it don't have any location”

    Yes indeed!!!! A standalone object is NOT located anywhere since there is no other object around for which to gauge a location…..duh!! Hello…..Earth to Mohd!!!

    LOL…I can tell that “having a brain” is not your best attribute, Mohd.

    “That's mean shape isn't an intrinsic property of an object because a standalone object can't exist even though it still have its shape.”

    Even though it still has shape (as you say), and it’s standalone (as you say)…..then shape is OBVIOUSLY the ONLY and INTRINSIC property of an object. Ha ha ha….there are NO other objects around, so no extrinsic properties are possible. Shape is THE intrinsic property. Ha ha ha!

    LOL…. I can tell that “basic kindergarten-level thinking” is not even in your list of attributes, Mohd.

  • profile image

    Mohammad Raymond 3 years ago

    That's also mean that shape is depend on at least two objects. Thoughts?

  • profile image

    Mohammad Raymond 3 years ago

    Okay, that's nice if you're not going to delete questions anymore. :)

    You said,

    "Whoa! Hold on a sec…..not so fast. You’re dealing with FastFist here…..the FASTEST and MOST POWERFUL FIST IN THE UNIVERSE!!

    But YOU said (and I quote): “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

    Since the standalone object you speak of IS indeed an object (as you referred to it as such), then of course it is bounded from the immediate surrounding! Therefore….it does indeed have SHAPE!!! Hence YOUR statement above is CONTRADICTORY!!

    LO….See, Mohammad….here you ALWAYS answer your own questions and you do it with your foot in your mouth….every single time!"

    Yes, it still have its shape but you also said it don't have any location. So, this standalone object can't exist and don't exist just like circle, square, Superman, etc. That's mean shape isn't an intrinsic property of an object because a standalone object can't exist even though it still have its shape.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohd: “I'd already defined those three formidable words”

    Mohd: “exist: object with location”

    Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

    Great! Thank you! Now let’s analyze YOUR statement…..

    Mohd: “So if a standalone object can't exist, then it can't retain its shape. “

    Whaaaaaaaat??????

    Whoa! Hold on a sec…..not so fast. You’re dealing with FastFist here…..the FASTEST and MOST POWERFUL FIST IN THE UNIVERSE!!

    But YOU said (and I quote): “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding” - Mohd

    Since the standalone object you speak of IS indeed an object (as you referred to it as such), then of course it is bounded from the immediate surrounding! Therefore….it does indeed have SHAPE!!! Hence YOUR statement above is CONTRADICTORY!!

    LOL….See, Mohammad….here you ALWAYS answer your own questions and you do it with your foot in your mouth….every single time!

    “Don't delete this question, Fatfist”

    Questions are NEVER deleted here, Mohd. Don’t confuse this place with the “Religion of Scatology & Technology” forum where rational questions are deleted and rational posters are always banned. RS&T thrives on Censorship…..you should know that since YOU got banned for contradicting their Religion. LOL!!!!!!!!!

    Now how about I buy you a drink for answering YOUR own questions every single time?

  • profile image

    Mohammad Raymond 3 years ago

    Is there someone here pretending to be myself?

    I'd already defined those three formidable words that you loved so much, Fatfist. So if a standalone object can't exist, then it can't retain its shape. But if you are going to say that this standalone object still retain its shape, there are only two answers that you can give to me, Fatfist. It is :

    1) It is certainly have shape like circle, square, triangles, etc. but unfortunately this is an abstract object as it don't have any location. So it is nothing.

    2) It still retain its shape, and it is exist by itself.

    Which answer that you will choose? Don't delete this question, Fatfist :)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammad Raymond!! What happened to you, bro? Did the Wanker of the Technology Asylum ban you for asking questions he couldn't answer? LOL....typical.....silence the opposition.

    Mohammad my bro....here you ALWAYS answer your own questions and you do it with your foot in your mouth!

    But you didn't answer my question from last time: Can I buy you a beer for being the first person in history to rationally define OBJECT, SHAPE and EXIST?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "How do I know if you're taking me serious, when you don't answer my questions nor are you willing to at least look up my terms for yourself?"

    Well.....how do I??

    Physicalism:_____

    Fill in the blanks. 2nd time I ask!!

  • Heurist profile image

    Heurist 3 years ago

    Who's "Baretta"?

    Somehow I get this vision of someone smacking while chewing gum in their mouth, with hands on their hips, thumping their foot with a bunch of pent up hostility just waiting for someone to trigger it.

    I came here with a serious intention of discussing the post. This has only to do with better understanding for me. I wasn't being critical towards anyone personally.

    How do I know if you're taking me serious, when you don't answer my questions nor are you willing to at least look up my terms for yourself?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "physicalism"

    Ok Baretta, what is this physicalism you speak of? What does this word mean? Please tell the audience so we can all understand.

    Please define and don't whine....physicalism:____

    Fill in the blanks....then you will answer your OWN question just like everyone else does.

  • Heurist profile image

    Heurist 3 years ago

    How did you determine that physicalism is a religion?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Heurist....Not familiar with that Religion you call 'physicalism'. Is their worship day on Sunday or Saturday? I hope that it ain't during the weekdays cuz folks gotta go to work, come home, cook, feed the kids, help them do their homework, walk the dog, cut the grass, shovel the snow and stuff.

    Anyway....it's obvious that this article isn't based on any such Religion otherwise you would have cut & pasted a quote from this article and explained how it contradicts itself in great luxurious detail for all our audience see with their own eyes....which would be VERY EASY for someone who makes such claims to do!

    Thanks for your comment anyway. It gets lonely here at times....nice to see a soul drop by. Even if they had nothing to offer. We only get people who put their own foot in their mouths here, so you can imagine how bored I am....

  • Heurist profile image

    Heurist 3 years ago

    The article was well written, but has major issues.

    The main issue is that it is based completely upon physicalism.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    You are the very first rational person to post the definitions of 'shape' and 'exist' which justify WHY a lone object cannot be said to exist. I hope you are gloating right now, Mohd.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohd: “exist: object with location”

    Mohd: " If it [a lone object] can't exist, why does it still retains its shape?”

    Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

    Thank you for giving us your defn of ‘shape’, mohd. Now let’s test your defn to answer your previous question and see if the term ‘shape’ has any DEPENDENCY to the term ‘exist’.

    Since a lone object is bounded from its immediate surrounding and not blended and vanishing within…. then as per YOUR definition, a lone object has shape and that’s the only property is has.

    And the fact that an object has shape, speaks nothing of its existence. Existence and shape have nothing to do with each other as they are two independent concepts, as shown in YOUR definitions.

    a) Shape certainly does NOT depend on existence, as shown in YOUR definition above!

    b) Existence necessitates a location, as shown in YOUR definition above!

    Even a square has shape, but doesn’t exist as it has no location. Only the paper and ink exist as they both have location.

    CONGRATULATIONS: Your definition of ‘exist’ and ‘shape’ are RATIONAL and pass ALL THE TESTS with flying colors!

    You should be very proud of yourself, Mohd. Can I please buy you a beer? I will be in northern Europe in a few months, would you like to meet up? Lunch, dinner and all you can drink on me!

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    It is (a).

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding or a relation between object and space.”

    Ummmm….so which is the definition of ‘shape’

    a) Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding

    OR

    b) Shape is a relation between object and space

    It's either one or the other. A definition conveys the meaning of the term precisely without ambiguities, like OR-ing case scenarios and thus committing the Fallacy of Equivocation.

    So which is your defn….a) or b) ?

    Please tell us so we can answer your very important question.

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding or a relation between object and space.

    If this object have shape, then it must be mean that this object exist. But if a lone atom have shape, why can't it exist even though if there are no other existing objects to relate with?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohd: " If it can't exist, why does it still retains its shape?”

    Oh, this is another GREAT question, mohd. I thank you for bringing it up.

    Now, since you were so kind and honest to define ‘exist’ for the audience, please be kind and honest again to define what you mean by ‘shape’ in your question above so we can understand if existence (as YOU defined it) has any DEPENDENCE on shape (as you will define it now)…

    I don't want to hear anybody else's version of ‘shape’ except yours….and please don’t post anything else so we can settle this burning issue of yours.

    Mohd's shape:______

    Please exhibit the same level of honesty and fill in the blanks for us.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Thank you for not trolling, Mohd (whomever your sock may be). And thank you for answering your own question. This is what Physics is about....no trolling and 100% honesty.

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    You're forgetting something, Fatfist. My definitions are just the same as yours. If it can't exist, why does it still retains its shape?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohd: "this lone atom can't exist?"

    Mohd: “My definition of exist is object with location.”

    Thank you for giving us your defn of ‘exist’, mohd. Now let’s test your defn to answer your previous question and see if a lone object passes your defn with flying colors…

    Q1: Is a lone atom an object? Yes, it has shape. All good so far.

    Q2: Does a lone atom have location? No! It can only be located with respect to another object. Oooops!

    Therefore, according to YOU, mohd, a lone atom cannot be said to exist.

    See...you just answered your own question.

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    My definition of exist is object with location. Any problem?

    Care to answer my previous question without deleting it? :)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "this lone atom can't exist?"

    You have ONE chance to justify why are not trolling along with your buddies here, Mohammed (if that is really you). You must define what you mean by exist in that very important question you asked.

    I don't want to hear anybody else's version of 'exist' except yours.

    Mohd's exist:______

    fill in the blanks without posting anything else, otherwise you are trolling. This is your last chance to justify why you shouldn't be banned here.

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    Fatfist, you said,

    " I never delete comments for any reason, but this level of trolling is now finished."

    Really?

    Then if your def. of object is that which have shape, and your def. of exist is object with location, how can a standalone atom still retains its shape whereas this lone atom can't exist?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Trolling sock puppets are not gonna get anywhere here. This is a Physics forum. Take your games to the kindergarten yard. I never delete comments for any reason, but this level of trolling is now finished.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Is this a joke, Michel? And which Michel are you, btw? Never seen you post here before. There is no other post of a Michel here except you. And yes, everyone is an imposter on the Internets (including you) unless they post a pic of their government ID on their profile....and even that is highly questionable. I suggest you stop playing games like others have been doing here for the past month. Diversion of the issues presented in this article is not an argument against them.

  • profile image

    Michel Andre 3 years ago

    fatfist, someone has deceived and abused you here. The post under the name "Mich Andre" is not mine. You're dealing with an imposter.

  • profile image

    Wankers Anonymous (Liverpool chapter) 3 years ago

    Hello, we are trying to locate an individual by the name of Jake Archer. He was abnormally fascinated with you and your material during his weekly sessions in our therapeutic facility. He missed his appointment last week and we haven’t been able to locate him. If you have a phone or email contact, please let us know. Thank you.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Looks like sensitive ladyboy Jake has lust for me. That's what the definition of sapiosexual is all about....hot sexual romantic everlasting lust and desire towards an intelligent person you cannot refute. No wonder he comes here to post under sock puppet ids and elaborate assumed aliases....pretending to be a student in University, etc. The only institution Jake has ever set foot in his pathetic miserable life is either a PUB or an Insane Asylum. That's why the mind of a raving lunatic is very easy to read. His posts instantly identify this delicate little Princess that always complains about how she is abused by her imaginary lover ;)

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    Mich PM'd me after this FF, and basically told me the same thing. He also said that Jake was a sapiosexual, whatever that means.

    He said he was concerned for Jake's mental health, as he was rambling about 2D tubes and other non-sensical objects. What's next, he wonders, "square circles?"

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    It's ok, Mitch....thanks for your honesty.

  • profile image

    Mich Andre 3 years ago

    You are right about Jake Archer, fattie. His is mentally ill. I thought he had something with his mobius strip being absolute (as he claimed), but I now understand from your explanation why it cannot be so. Thank you for clearing up this issue. Jake tried to steal Gaede’s ideas and make a 2D mobius strip universe. He had us all fooled. Thanks to Nick to for opening our eyes. CERN images actually show the atom to be identical to that proposed by Bill's rope theory. No wonder Jake is upset and went mad. Everybody has abandoned him. I’d like to apologize for Mohammad and myself coming here under assumed aliases to stir up trouble. But it was Jake who sent us here to trick you into admitting Jake’s 2D mobius strip is an absolute object that exists. Thank you for opening our eyes. Cheers.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    The troll cannot defend his single object contradiction because he knows that absolutes are impossible. Ha ha ha ha :)

    That's why he ran with his tail....as always.

    A votre sante!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “But if "An object cannot bring itself into existence" is not an absolute, there must be a situation where an object can bring itself into existence.”

    It doesn’t follow. Your statement is committing the Non-sequitur Fallacy. An object must exist BEFORE it can perform ANY action, even the supposed action of “bringing itself into existence”. Therefore, your proposition is contradictory.

    Since it’s contradictory….then how can it be absolute?

  • profile image

    inquisitor 3 years ago

    But if "An object cannot bring itself into existence" is not an absolute,

    there must be a situation where an object can bring itself into existence.

    That's where I'm getting lost

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "No"

    Good boy. Continue taking it!

    "Is that absolute?"

    There are no absolutes. Absolutes are impossible. But you already knew this. Here's a refresher:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-are...

  • profile image

    inquisitor 3 years ago

    c. No

    But now I am confused. An object cannot bring itself into existence? Is that absolute?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    There we go. See, you can answer your own questions every single time. Just like Mohammed Atta did. :)

    Still waiting for (c)....YES or NO?

  • profile image

    inquisitor 3 years ago

    a. I cannot give you an example of an object that does not exist.

    b. An apple sitting on the table cannot bring itself into existence.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “I can only pick one that exists and ask myself "can this object bring itself into existence?"”

    Ummmm….Sir inquisitor…..if the object you pick exists already (like an apple), why would a deranged lunatic ask himself if it can bring itself into existence?

    Pwned!

    Talk about pwning yourself, putting your foot in your mouth and shooting yourself in the face at the same time. Same old….same old.

    LOL!!

    What a looney asylum you got going there! Hilarious! I was right….you’re not doing any better than your little boytoy Mohammed Raymond. Two non-brains make no brain!

    Have you been taking your medication….you know the Zoloft? Why did you go off it, Sir inquisitor?

  • profile image

    inquisitor 3 years ago

    I cannot give you an object that doesn't exist. I can only pick one that exists and ask myself "can this object bring itself into existence?"

    We will use you definition of exist and your definition of object.

    Pick any object you want.

    Can that object bring itself into existence?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    So we first have an object that doesn't exist?

    Please give an example of such an object which doesn't exist...or link a pic of one. Then explain how it begins to exist.

    And your definition of 'exist' will elucidate whether it can exist or not.

    Fill in the blanks......exist:_____

  • profile image

    inquisitor 3 years ago

    Can an object bring itself to exist?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammed, stop spamming clutter and preventing others from reading the comments section.

    You said: "But you said that standalone single object still retain its shape? Can you explain it?"

    We don't explain concepts like 'shape'. We define them. All terms have a meaning. Grammar 101. Go back to school and learn the basics. If you disagree, please give us an explanation for the concept of ‘good’. LOL….illiterate children!

    It's only possible to explain a phenomenon (i.e. action) that has occurred.

    An object has shape BY DEFINITION. It is impossible for an object not to have shape. Please name a single object without shape and I will PayPal you $10,000. You can make lots $$$ from the Mighty Fist!

    "Nothing (i.e. space) don't exist."

    Exactly! That's why the Earth cannot possibly perform the action of "floating" 'in' nothing. No interaction can be had with nothing....and most importantly, an object cannot possibly be encased 'IN' nothing :)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “isn't it actually still "floating"

    An object can perhaps float on water or in lava…..but NEVER ‘in’ nothing. You need a minimum of 2 objects for the ACTION of ‘float’ to be mediated! We learn this prior to Junior Kindergarten when mom & dad gave us bathtime.

    “…in "nothing"

    Is ‘nothing’ a CONTAINER or a Tupperware of sorts in your Religion, Mohammed? Is this what Muhammad & Allah told you…..or is your Mullah to blame for this idiocy?

    Please draw an image (or link to one online) of this container YOU call ‘nothing’. Then the audience can see if we can actually put an object in it….ok?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “If this standalone single object can indeed exist”

    You said…..

    object: that which has shape and location

    exist: object with location

    So from YOUR definition, it is impossible for a single object to be CLAIMED to ‘exist’, as per the definition YOU provided. Why? Because it is impossible for a single object to have a location, much less TWO locations which YOU decreed in YOUR definition.

    VERY EMBARRASING LESSON LEARNED by Mohammed Raymond:

    -------------------

    An object exists BY DEFINITION, only! If you want a lone object to ‘exist’, the onus is on YOU to define ‘exist’ so that the definition elucidates your wish!

    -------------------

    Mohammed, I can now feel your pain. I’m sorry to see you this traumatized, I truly am…..I hate to see my loving fans this down.

    But there have been many others like you that had a taste of REALITY from The Venerable Mighty Fist who is MORE powerful than the 4 forces of the Universe. Very few ever got over this traumatic experience…. and were only able to live normal lives by understanding the difference between an object and a concept. While most became depressed,…. withdrawn from society,…. have no friends,…. their wife left them,…. they sought solace in Stefan Molyneux’s Cult for a few years….they left with brain damage, bipolar disorder, autism, impotence, a wider anus, etc…..became lonely again…..are looking for Mrs. Right, but no woman wants such a pathetic disgusting loser…..so they will spend the rest of their years pleasuring themselves on Internet porn – you know, like The Law of Identity A=A, which is Self-Rhetorically-Referential….and of course… “supposedly” Absolute, said the horse, of course of course!

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    If this standalone single object can indeed exist and still have its shape, but yet don't have any location, isn't it actually still "floating" in "nothing"?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammed Raymond, you do realize that this forum has nothing to with the discussions you have with other folks on the Internets. You need to grow up, look down your pants and make sure you're a man....a real MAN who can take charge of his CLAIMS and justify them…..not hide behind others and use them as scapegoats for his inability to justify his claims.

    Very sad that people have to resort to these unscrupulous games of personal insecurity and try to advance them as some sort of pathetic “argument”. Hilarious!

    Regardless…..the terms ‘relational’ and ‘objective’ are not opposites (antonyms) and have nothing to do with each other. The argument you are trying to raise is committing the Non-Sequitur Fallacy. i.e. relational does not follow your claim of not being objective (antonym of subjective). If you attended primary school you should know the ultra-basics. And this only shows that you are just here to troll. So as a troll…..you will be banned from these Physics forums as you can’t even justify your claim of a single object existing and claim your $10,000 USD PayPal cash. You are a sad worthless troll.

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    Monk. E Mind said in his article "Atom & Cell", shape is relational. While you said shape is objective. Why?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “How can the assumption of the lone object....”

    Because it’s YOUR assumption! You made this up. That’s why you cannot define the term ‘exist’ that will apply to this lone object you pulled out of your hole! It is YOU who shot yourself in the face. I just pointed this out to you. And when you realized it, you became extremely embarrassed and agitated and started to cry like a little girl.

    Here, let me make it easier for you: if you can define ‘exist’ that will apply to this lone object “ASSUMPTION” of yours, then I promise to PayPal you $10,000 USD in cash. I am on the record!

    If you cannot define ‘exist’ to support a lone object, then obviously your ASSUMPTION is irrational and impossible. LOL….what else is new, right? You know what happens when YOU assume….you make an A** out of yourself. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! :)

    The next comment you (Mohammed Raymond) post had better supply this definition of ‘exist’ that confirms YOUR ASSUMPTION…..otherwise you and your fake userids will be banned from ever posting here again….got it?

    This is a world renowned Physics forum. Nobody puts up with intellectual dishonesty.

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    How can the assumption of the lone object still retain its shape if it don't, can't exist?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Nope, that's not the definition of object I have in the article. You are autistic. You cannot even read or comprehend simple words....not even the ones YOU write. That's why you cannot achieve your end result. Funny, huh? Everyone is laughing at you! :)

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    So what is the purpose of your article regarding object? Isn't object is something that which have shape & location?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "I am using your own definition."

    Nope, that's not my definition of object. That is yours. Stop lying and have an honest dialogue.

    You own definition doesn't give you the result you desire.

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    I am using your own definition. If you think deeply, actually you're contradicting yourself.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Someone is not having a good day...LOL. What do you expect when you define YOUR own terms and you shoot yourself in the face by not achieving the result YOU wanted (for lone objects to exist). Your lone object doesn't exist Mr. Atta, even though it does indeed have shape....and all this is according to YOU...ha ha ha!

    Drink some vinegar and get over it....LOL!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Cut the sock puppet BS, Mr. Atta. It's old.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammed Atta: “does the lone object still retain its shape?”

    Mohammed Atta: “Object is that which have shape & location.”

    According to YOUR definition of ‘object’, the object has shape! Read what you wrote.

    See…..you CAN answer your own questions every single time :)

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    Object is that which have shape & location.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammed Atta, don’t get too comfy with your new profile. When you cower and refuse to answer questions, your old profile goes right back up as your wall of shame!

    “it [lone object] don't exist”

    Exactly! And that’s according to YOUR definition (exist:object+location) which YOU provided. Don’t ever forget that, as I will ALWAYS remind you :)

    “does the lone object still retain its shape?”

    Ahhh….another VERY EASY PEASY question….. Just watch how you will answer it yourself in your next post here....with The Mighty Fist's encouragement.

    Please tell the audience what YOU mean by the term ‘object’ since YOU used it in a sentence. Let me help you out…..

    Fill in the blanks…..object:_______

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    Nice new profile pic, fatfist.

    You said, "According to YOU (exist: object+location) a lone object does NOT exist as it has no location!"

    If it don't exist, does the lone object still retain its shape?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammed Atta: “I define exist as object with location. Exist = object + location”

    Ahhhh….finally….. so now you answer questions and continue the dialogue. Good! See the POWER The Mighty Fist has over people? I mean, He can easily get anyone to answer their own questions!

    “How can a lone object that you love to assumed, even exist”

    Duh….yeah! That’s what the audience is wondering too, Mr. Atta. According to YOU (exist: object+location) a lone object does NOT exist as it has no location! Well….aren’t you the genius…..I mean, defining your much LOVED lone object out of existence!

    See….you do have the love & potential to answer your own questions. You just need The Mighty Fist for encouragement :)

    Let me ask you this, Mohammed Atta….why do you come here asking stupid retarded questions when you ALREADY answer them by yourself? I mean, did yo momma conceive you with defective drunken sailor semen?

  • profile image

    Mohd 3 years ago

    I don't dodge your questions obviously, fatfist. I define exist as object with location.

    Exist = object + location

    Why do you deleted my comments?

    How can a lone object that you love to assumed, even exist if it don't have any motion, location, etc.? How can this lone object still retain its shape?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Mohammed Atta, you dodged the question and you hot hammered! If you can't even define 'exist' for your alleged single object, you can't even use the word in a sentence.

    See....you haven't a brain at all :)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Ahh….we have ourselves a disgruntled butthurt suicide bomber!

    Mohammad: “How can a lone object even exist”

    Whaaaat? A lone object can exist??? Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

    Mohammad, please tell us what you mean by the term ‘exist’.

    Here, let me help you get started because I know it is impossible for you to answer this question…..

    Mahammad’s definition of ‘exist’:________

    Fill in the blanks, otherwise you are finished…..ha ha!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

    Gary, Allen, Advocate, Eric Gaede Fatfst, Gaede and Fatfist are all the same person (same IP) It is Mohammad Raymond.

  • profile image

    Mike Huttner 3 years ago

    You have completely misunderstood if you think the CONCEPTS magnetosphere and radiation are synonymous with the ropes themselves.

    Magnetosphere and radiation are abstractions of what the physical objects, the EM ropes, are doing. Magnetism is the action induced by threads (objects) spinning around an atom and radiation is the action of EM ropes twisting in place.

    "See?"

    All I see is that you've confused the concepts of radiation and magnetism with the objects which mediate them. I have never claimed that the ropes or threads themselves are concepts. They are the objects mediating the concepts discussed above.

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    Actually you did said it a year ago in Freedomain Radio forum during a conversation in your own thread entitled "The Scientific Definition of Life".

    Someone asks to you in the forum "Is the magnetosphere an object? Is EM radiation an object? Even if you say that it's made of subatomic particles, well, subatomic particles are not objects."

    Then you said, " The magnetosphere is a concept, it is the AREA in which some PHYSICAL object(s) extends from earth and performs the action we call "magnetism". The trick to Science is determining the configuration of that object, how it relates to earth, and how it performs the magic trick we call "magnetism".

    EM radiation, likewise, is a CONCEPT. "To radiate" is what an object DOES, not what it is. Again, Science is about formulate a rational hypothesis to explain the phenomena known as EM radiation. What physical object could possibly mediate this behavior?

    That is the goal of Science".

    See?

    Look here if you are still skeptical, http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/35430-the-s...

  • profile image

    Mike Huttner 3 years ago

    Advocate- WHAT?

    Where did I say that the EM rope is just a concept?? The ropes connecting atoms, mediating light, are not concepts.... they are objects in their own right.

  • profile image

    Advocate 3 years ago

    Bill Gaede say light is an electromagnetic rope being twisted and he is also say light is an object. But some of his brethren, such as Mike Huttner say in Freedomain Radio forum, EM ropes are mediated by atom and it is just a concept.

  • profile image

    Scott 3 years ago

    Fatfist,

    Do you think that light exists?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Asno,

    “Doesn't gravity provide the explanation for WHY?”

    No, it doesn’t. Just google gravity wrt Einstein, Newton, Quantum, etc and you will see that no mathematical priest has ever explained the PHYSICAL MECHANISM of why a pen falls to the floor. Actually....there are no explanations for any natural phenomenon (electricity, light, magnetism, etc.) from the so-called mathematical physicists. Equations do not explain mechanisms.....they only describe the motion i.e. from here to there. Description is not the same as explanation.

    “aren't Angels just objects and therefore modelable?”

    Of course and Angel is a HYPOTHETICAL object, and hence amenable to illustration. Even if the object is invisible, like the object which mediates light, gravity and magnetism....it is nonetheless still an object....it has shape. Air is an object we can’t see.....so is an atom.

    The Theory of Gravity....or any theory, requires a Hypothesized object that will perform the events (i.e. attraction/gravitation) between objects. The Theory rationally explains these events, and thus, why the pen fell to the floor during our experiment.

    “If there were no perceptual beings, no language ... does the WHY even make sense”

    Science is a field of study used by humans to explain phenomena in nature.....evolution, light, gravity, etc. We use language to explain why these events happen the way they do by proposing objects which underlie these phenomena. Mathematics is not an explanatory language.....it is a tautological descriptive syntax.

    “I'm not sure if there is anything that isn't an object.”

    Plenty: space, time, energy, spacetime, photons and other 0D particles, black holes, force, field, love, justice, happiness, .....all these are concepts.

    “Is gas an object? “

    It had better be. Gas can perform events in nature.....like blow down a tree during a windstorm.

    “Or is gas the concept of those objects relationship to each other?”

    No, because we can illustrate gas, like an ozone molecule:

    http://www.rkm.com.au/ozone/ozone-images/OZONE-mol...

    object: that which has shape

    If word can resolve to an entity with shape, then it is an object. We can point to or illustrate all objects. We can only define concepts. All words will resolve to either objects or concepts. There is no other category.

    “Isn't everything just relationships between atoms/sub atomic particles?”

    No. We conceive of relationships to define concepts. The concept of surfing is a dynamic relationship between a surfboard, body of water and a person. Surfing is not an object/entity....it is an idea (ie. relation/concept).

    “When I have a thought - is it something or nothing? “

    Read the top of this article. I explain how thoughts are just relationships you establish between the objects in your environment. Thoughts do not exist. Your brain exists and so do its atoms. It’s the atomic motion of your brain which causes this effect we call “thought”.

    “Do atoms in a relationship make up a concept such as love”

    The concept of love is a relation between 2 or more humans.....an action/verb. Love is what humans do. You are free to define it using words such as sex, affection, etc. The concept of love is subjective.....can’t be defined objectively. Some people will “love” differently than others. There is no correct way to love.

    “While we might see things and assume they are, or have good reason to believe, are objects. “

    We don’t believe in objects or in anything. We hypothesize objects, illustrate them.....and then use them as ACTORS to explain some phenomenon, like gravity or light. As another example, we hypothesize the Big Foot object to explain the phenomenon of footprints, broken branches and mauled campers in the forest. If the Theory proposed by the scientist is rational without any contradictions.....then this object Big Foot may be possible to exist and may have killed those campers. There is no knowledge or 100% absolute certainty in science. If the Theory is irrational....then it is impossible for such a Big Foot object to exist and cause these specific killings.

  • profile image

    Asno Mudo 5 years ago from London

    Ok, that all makes sense, but I'm still left with a couple things I don't quite understand.

    I apologize if I'm stumbling towards something that you feel is more than clear ...

    (1a) I'm finding it hard to understand where the WHY comes in. Doesn't gravity provide the explanation for WHY? But even if it doesn't and it really was an Angel ... aren't Angels just objects and therefore modelable?

    (1b) If there were no perceptual beings, no language ... does the WHY even make sense ... actually I feel that I've failed to grasp some important part of your idea.

    (2) I'm not sure if there is anything that isn't an object. Are there any attributes that are universally applicable to objects that don't regress into some sort of quantum sub atomic particle majingo.

    Is gas an object? clearly the atoms that make up the gas are objects. Or is gas the concept of those objects relationship to each other? Isn't everything just relationships between atoms/sub atomic particles?

    But that can't be right because it would imply that the relationship between the atoms in an iron ingot is the concept of the ingot and yet an iron bar feels kind of solid.

    Now here's where I really get lost.

    When I have a thought - is it something or nothing? Does it have a physical reality ... did a repeatable (unique?) arrangement of 'something' occur inside my brain to make that thought?

    I.E. Do atoms in a relationship make up a concept such as love ... thus wouldn't it be arbitrary and incoherent to suggest that rock was an object and yet deny that love, by virtue of our own inability to see it as a coherent whole isn't?

    I guess what I'm saying is that there are only objects in relationships to each other and anything else is simply the result of our inability to see reality as it is, so we assume that they are separate and distinct when in fact they are just part of a greater whole.

    While we might see things and assume they are, or have good reason to believe, are objects. Which obviously has it's immediate practical benefits, but says nothing about the underlying nature of reality whatever that might be.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Ok Anso.....you gotta understand the difference between objects and concepts. Concepts are just relations between objects. We invent and establish all concepts. Concepts do not exist. Only objects can exist if they are located somehere.

    Exist: something somewhere (i.e. an object having a location).

    “An object itself can't do anything without concepts ... a rock doesn't crush you without momentum and mass.”

    Existing objects perform actions whether or not humans are there to observe and conceive of these actions (i.e. conceptual relations). The Earth orbited the Sun before any life evolved here.

    “Surely any linguistic attempt at modelling reality can have no greater veracity than mathematical attempts”

    There is a difference, and a HUGE one.

    Since math is only a descriptive language, it cannot be used to explain phenomena (i.e. Theories). It is impossible....yes impossible to use any sort of math to explain WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Math only DESCRIBES dynamic concepts. Math can describe the itinerary the pen underwent while falling to the floor....and how fast it did....and give you an equation describing it speed and motion, etc. That’s where the buck stops for math!

    Only language, like English or Pig Latin can be used to explain the details of WHY objects fall to the floor instead of the ceiling. Example: the pen fell to the floor because God’s angels grabbed it and pulled down to the floor.

    “As an aside - a lack of 'love' has been scientifically proven to be detrimental to the life of babies ... even if they get food etc, without 'love' apparently they don't prosper. So it would seem that concepts can kill.”

    We need to understand the context of your usage of the term “love”. Love is an action between 2 entities: the baby and its parents. The baby needs this physical contact/interaction in order to flourish....just as it needs food to flourish. So yes, denying the baby of physical contact will have negative if not dire effects.

    Remember: only objects can perform actions.

  • profile image

    Asno Mudo 5 years ago from London

    I'm not sure I follow ... perhaps I'm missing something?

    An object itself can't do anything without concepts ... a rock doesn't crush you without momentum and mass.

    Surely any linguistic attempt at modelling reality can have no greater veracity than mathematical attempts - ultimately neither is reality, both just incomplete representations of something we can't grasp in it's entirety?

    As an aside - a lack of 'love' has been scientifically proven to be detrimental to the life of babies ... even if they get food etc, without 'love' apparently they don't prosper. So it would seem that concepts can kill.