Can a concept have thought?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

My thinking is this;
Among a world where philosophy and science is dominated by Materialists, I must profess to being an Idealist (possibly a Dualist, but more an Idealist), and as such, I think the Mind is the most immediate thing, and while it is pretty obviously connected to the physical brain, this is not logically necessary (it is logically possible that the Mind could exist independent of any physical body).

If a Mind doesn't need any Material body to exist (and by Material, I mean anything part of the physical world; that's matter, space, energy, force, anything...) then it's perfectly possible that while we, physical human beings, have Minds, there may be completely incorporeal beings with Minds too.

As such, a concept itself, like a personification (something invented entirely by human Minds) may have some form of Mind itself. A concept may have it's own awareness, perhaps even it's own thought.

This doesn't mean they do, just that it is logically possible that they might.

I personally already believe it possible, and I even believe it actually happens (in some different thoughts of mine, which I may bring up at a later date), but I was wondering what other people thought?

(Also, If you're wondering why I may seem to contradict myself by claiming to be an Idealist and then talking about the physical brain and material world, I can explain myself, but purely out of laziness I won't yet. I will post my metaphysical thoughts elsewhere at some point...)

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,068 • Replies: 27

No top replies

@Welshie,

Got your point. But then one should consider, how can a concept which you said are created by human minds exist with a thought if its mere existence at least as an ideal existence depends on the human conceiving it. That "thought or concept" cannot perceive and conceive for itself for it doesn't have an active power by and for itself, which after been said to be granted the concept of thought, still doesn't think for itself.

1 Reply

@Patty phil,

I think it depends what exactly you mean by 'have a thought.' I don't think human being 'have thoughts' in the sense that they are the cause of the thoughts, or the agent which thinks, ala descartes' thinking thing. So, if you define 'having a thought' otherwise, perhaps thoughts do 'have thoughts.' I don't know.

0 Replies

@Welshie,

Welshie wrote:

As such, a concept itself, like a personification (something invented entirely by human Minds) may have some form of Mind itself. A concept may have it's own awareness, perhaps even it's own thought.

Why would an idealist claim we 'invent' concepts?

0 Replies

@Welshie,

Your proposition: It is possible that a concept can have thought, awareness and a mind.

If I am to accept this proposition, I may have to accept others which fall under the semantic field of the predicate "has thought," "has awareness," "has a mind."

Thus, under your claim, a concept may have cogitative, cognitive, psychological, emotional properties; perception, volition, voluntary movement, imagination, knowledge, memory, transitive and intransitive conscious experience, belief and many other characteristics.

Since emotion, perception, voluntary movement, memory and imagination all presuppose some physical context by which the terms bear significance, it would be silly to grant them to concepts. For what sense is there to be had from saying that a concept voluntarily moved? A fortiori what sense is there to be had from saying that a concept moved (except in some figurative sense that presupposes the mastery of concepts by one who has learned them)? What sense can be had from saying of a concept that it mastered the use of other concepts? That a concept learns another concept? That a concept follows a rule so taught it?

What sense is there to be had from saying of a concept that it is religious? For surely, under your claim, it is logically possible for a concept to be religious, to believe in God or to believe in tradition.

What sense is there to be had in saying of a concept that it is moral? How might a concept become moral? How might a concept engage in moral instruction?

Can we say of a concept that it is wise or that it is unwise? Communal as opposed to isolationist and reclusive?

Might concepts be political? Angry? Courageous, prideful, mean-spirited and thoughtful? Kind, chauvinistic or benevolent?

It would seem, at face value, that your claim is absurd; for it would be absurd to say that a concept invented or discovered another concept.

The truth conditions for your claim can neither be empirically nor analytically verified. Thus, the determination of the truth of your position is in principle impossible unless we decide, by whim or by coercion, I suppose, to switch to your linguistic paradigm.

So tell me, what utility does your worldview hold, seeing as how it has no truth-conditions? Surely you must hold it as being a model of some sort with which you resolve or understand the world in greater detail or in some unique way. But I strain myself to understand how this is possible, for I personally see no use in such a view as the one you hold. It would seem to be so constituted as to provide no answer to any question whatsoever except the question of how you might fancifully contrive a peculiar metaphysic.

1 Reply

@nerdfiles,

One a concept is presented, assimilated and adopted into the social meta-sphere/zeitgeist/Superorganic/Noosphere whatever, it does take on a life of its own independent of the minds that originally thought it. It often has a will and volition of sorts. It simultaneously is directed and directs the individuals thinking it. At times it changes the course of history in unforeseen ways. So I say once a concept has transcended the merely personal it is a creature capable of many of the functions that its originators are.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

One a concept is presented, assimilated and adopted into the social meta-sphere/zeitgeist/Superorganic/Noosphere whatever, it does take on a life of its own independent of the minds that originally thought it. It often has a will and volition of sorts. It simultaneously is directed and directs the individuals thinking it. At times it changes the course of history in unforeseen ways. So I say once a concept has transcended the merely personal it is a creature capable of many of the functions that its originators are.

So a notion develops a consciousness after it's conjured?

As nerdfiles notes above: Where are the truth-statements here? Even the "meme" theory doesn't give notions this much attention. A concept transcends the merely personal and becomes a creature capable of rational thought? Where on earth did you derive this logical progression? Please walk me through.

I just thought of a Goblin. Does it now exist, changing history in unforeseen ways? If you see one, please let me know.

0 Replies

@Welshie,

And which particular concept do we have in mind here?

What is the content of this concept? Is it open or closed? Is it the kind of thing we employ in our everyday linguistic practices? Or do we mean by concept something that is better labeled "idea"?

Quote:

One[sic] a concept is presented, assimilated and adopted into the social meta-sphere/zeitgeist/Superorganic/Noosphere whatever, it does take on a life of its own independent of the minds that originally thought it.

Can you point to one concept that has done such a thing? And if you cannot name one that has followed such a path within the course of the history of ideas, might you present to us what such a process would look like were it to happen?

By poetic license I might judge that a book or a film or a musical work has taken on a life of its own. But this would be nothing other than a figurative way of intimating the idea that it has met a wide audience who rank it, on average, with high value and esteem. Much to the worry of my peers, insofar as they might begin a concern for my rationality or whether I have been bribed, I might consider a novel or a work of art, independently of its publishers, author, translators, editors and funding partners, to have a seemingly "intelligent agenda" in its immense persuasion of hundreds of millions of readers within such a short time span. To reach the point of granting such a thing volitional, cognitive and psychological properties would, very much, force my peers to question whether I have good sense or some ulterior motive.

Quote:

So I say once a concept has transcended the merely personal it is a creature capable of many of the functions that its originators are.

Whatever could it mean to "transcend the merely personal"? And can a concept lead a campaign? Fight a war? Become a "human being" in the political or social sense? A rational agent? A moral arbiter? Serve the function of being a mother? A President? A primary school teacher? A philosopher?

What meaning are you attempting to convey by your words? Do you expect even in the slightest for them to be considered true? Do you, in any way whatever, expect for us to take them as true? Because they seem, at first blush, to be quite devoid of any sense whatsoever; and sense is a precondition that must be met before truth can be entertained.

More or less you seem to hazard an attempt at being grammatical. But this condition is necessary, though it is not sufficient, to give sense to the sequences and combinations of characters and of words which you have relayed to us.

1 Reply

@nerdfiles,

Hey Nerdfiles, do you like Wittgenstein?

0 Replies

@Welshie,

That much should be obvious unless you have a point or an ulterior motive behind such an unconstructive and irrelevant question.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

One a concept is presented, assimilated and adopted into the social meta-sphere/zeitgeist/Superorganic/Noosphere whatever, it does take on a life of its own independent of the minds that originally thought it. It often has a will and volition of sorts. It simultaneously is directed and directs the individuals thinking it. At times it changes the course of history in unforeseen ways. So I say once a concept has transcended the merely personal it is a creature capable of many of the functions that its originators are.

Whoa there Nellies! hold your horses, I think some people are wrapped up in their own arguments and jumping to conclusions. It seems I should clarify some things.
I wrote once (a) concept is part of the social meta-sphere/zeitgeist/Superorganic/Noosphere, not once any or all concepts are. So thinking up purple unicorns and happy leprochauns does not necessarily make them real, just like I cannot extend a physical reality to the concept of and ethic, lets say literacy is good, yet no one can deny that the concept literacy is good is a social reality in the westernized world. Still within a certain culture, time period, and people, leprochauns were a "real" cultural influence.

Lets take on of the cultural/societal consciousness concepts the superorganic.
The superorganic is a generalized model presented by and Anthropologist, A.L. Kroeber in the first half of the 20th century. In short the model goes a little something like this. Culture is more than the sum total of its compnents.
Inorganic Elements form organic systems which form biological creatures
A dog is made from its various systems made from its various organic constituents made from its various inorganic constituents. Dissassmble the constituents you no longer have a dog

On a symbolic scale a culture is made from its various systems made from its various functions made from its various individuals, break a culture down into its individuals you no longer have a culture.

In a symbolic sense a culture as product of its various notions and systems is independent from the from those very systems and constituencies that form it much the same way the dog is an independent being from the compounds that form it. It is a holism formed from the heirarchical level below it, englufing those constituents and laws and transcending them becoming a being with its own laws and its own function.
Kroeber aregued that the superoganic being was not necessarily sentient it was more like an Amoeba. The influence however is still the same. Take almost anything intergenerationally internalized. Racism for example a parent rarely thinks hey I's should instill racism in my child today. A less controvertial thing might be a parent also doesn't consciously say hey, I should instill conversational pragmatic rules in my child today. It is enough that racism "is" in the culture from whence those parents came, likewise it is enough that certain pragmatic rules exist in that culture as well.

I also wrote "it is a creature capable of many of the functions that its originators are"

This is not a direct argument for a sentient being capable of rational thought. It is an argument that the "concept" in question by its "being" functions in many of the same ways its originators (humans in the culture) do. Functions can be said to be influence. Its mere presence as a being or an "institutionalized" system within a culture influences the the constituency of that culture to act this way or that, believe this or that etc... It is also influenced and reshaped by the constituency. Neither the institutionalized system (concept) nor the constituency is easily changed. Its direct influence over the constituency however functions as the will of the culture. So I'm saying here that its functions are the same as will and rational change of thought within its parameters. Some might argue, and I'm still on the fence with this one that its function is the same as its being, or that since it functions as a rationalish being with a will then it must be so.

Cheers, Russ

BTW, NErdfiles, although it tends to be brusque and impersonal, almost rude, I really like your writing style.

0 Replies

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

That much should be obvious unless you have a point or an ulterior motive behind such an unconstructive and irrelevant question.

No, just a genuine question; nevermind. This is our first and last discussion.

0 Replies

@Welshie,

There is absolutely no way you could not see that I would take such a question as sarcasm or mockery. It reads "A Wittgensteinian" right under my name, and it states that much in my biography, which is easily accessible.

Clearly I share some sentiment with his ideas. If you mean by "do you like Wittgenstein" the question "do you like him as a person?", then perhaps you should have been clear about that. And it costs to be so incautious and imprecise. If you cannot be clear about your intentions, that is your meaning, in the face of obviously possible perceived meanings, then it is likely for the best that you should wish not to speak with me. I should not accept the charge of being intolerant. You happened to pull the first and the last straw in one inning.

3 Replies

@nerdfiles,

GoshisDead wrote:

In a symbolic sense a culture as product of its various notions and systems is independent from the from those very systems and constituencies that form it much the same way the dog is an independent being from the compounds that form it.

Biology is different than conceptual interpretation. "Culture" is an abstract notion, unlike "dog", which can more easily be defined by it's biological constituents. Where does a culture start and end? There are no boundaries with the argument you propose, for I could say any notion, idea, concept is made of 'compounds', constituents of a whole. "Culture" is a word constructed to categorize a classification of people; it isn't an actual entity, it's for comprehension of division, meaning. Whatever you *think* is happening within a culture is only as *real* as you *think* it to be. Don't misunderstand me: The actual people do change, but the key here is that "culture" is an abstract notion we define, no different in this respect to "country" or "government".

If I constructed a word right now called "Dinggitah", which allowed comprehension of division between the people in my living room and kitchen (Each room had different "Dinggitah"), is this word now composed of constituents, any more viral, "active", than the ones you propose for "culture"? Absolutely not.

Quote:

It is an argument that the "concept" in question by its "being" functions in many of the same ways its originators (humans in the culture) do
...
Its mere presence as a being or an "institutionalized" system within a culture influences the the constituency of that culture to act this way or that, believe this or that etc... It is also influenced and reshaped by the constituency

A concept does not function. Through human interpretation of concept, you see the influence you speak, you see the reshaping of the 'constituency' (and I'm not even comfortable using 'constituency' with a notion [culture]). The 'constituents' within the 'constituency' do not act. We act.

Quote:

Some might argue, and I'm still on the fence with this one that its function is the same as its being, or that since it functions as a rationalish being with a will then it must be so.

Please bring whoever refers to a concept as a "rationalish being with a will" to the front.

0 Replies

@Welshie,

Quote:

Biology is different than conceptual interpretation. "Culture" is an abstract notion, unlike "dog", which can more easily be defined by it's biological constituents. Where does a culture start and end? There are no boundaries with the argument you propose, for I could say any notion, idea, concept is made of 'compounds', constituents of a whole. "Culture" is a word constructed to categorize a classification of people; it isn't an actual entity, it's for comprehension of division, meaning. Whatever you *think* is happening within a culture is only as *real* as you *think* it to be. Don't misunderstand me: The actual people do change, but the key here is that "culture" is an abstract notion we define, no different in this respect to "country" or "government".

What is it that taught you how to interact with people?, What is it that taught you to wear clothes, cook food, type on a computer, use a bathroom, go to the doctor, write a language, appreciate music....? a single person a group of people? Where are the "acutal people" who taught them? Where is the committee that legislates when it is appropriate to speak in a conversation or when to be polite , or how much to tip, or when its appropriate to belch...? Why do you (likely), despite biological tendencies, feel ashamed when a strange woman sees you naked? Why don't you kiss your cousins? Why don't you punch people with whom you are angry? At what point are all these "abstracted concepts" not real? An un-real thing should definitley not affect you in anyway.

Quote:

If I constructed a word right now called "Dinggitah", which allowed comprehension of division between the people in my living room and kitchen (Each room had different "Dinggitah"), is this word now composed of constituents, any more viral, "active", than the ones you propose for "culture"? Absolutely not.

You can do whatever you like with a word's definition and say its a Dingitah, and if the those dinggitah directed the action of of the people in the Kitchen and the linving room, it still takes the dinggitah out of the realm of the purely abstract an into the realm of the physically observable.

Quote:

A concept does not function. Through human interpretation of concept, you see the influence you speak, you see the reshaping of the 'constituency' (and I'm not even comfortable using 'constituency' with a notion [culture]). The 'constituents' within the 'constituency' do not act. We act.

The argument is one of interaction; just as a fallen tree functions as a road block. the tree is not acting it just is, It doesn't make the tree any less real because its not wavingstop sign laden branches at you. Something that is can and does hold direct influence over your actions it serves a function.

Quote:

Please bring whoever refers to a concept as a "rationalish being with a will" to the front.

Functionalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Given that at least I have accepted the reality of culture it works for me.

1 Reply

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

That much should be obvious unless you have a point or an ulterior motive behind such an unconstructive and irrelevant question.

nerdfiles wrote:

There is absolutely no way you could not see that I would take such a question as sarcasm or mockery...

... And it costs to be so incautious and imprecise.

...I should not accept the charge of being intolerant. You happened to pull the first and the last straw in one inning.

Nerdfiles,

There's no need to take such a combative and adversarial demeanor. Many forums across the internet are OK letting their discussions stoop to the chronically-negative; here we are not. Spirited debates and discussions regarding content are encouraged, but summary judgments and continuous biting back-and-forth are not. Also, the extent to which someone can fire personal quips are similarly frowned upon.

As one of your humble moderators, I bid you relax and try to give comments or questions to your posts the benefit of the doubt. As I'm hoping you're aware, we'll undoubtedly see negativity and damning mockery if that's what we're expecting.

Returning you to your regularly scheduled thread - thanks

0 Replies

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

There is absolutely no way you could not see that I would take such a question as sarcasm or mockery. It reads "A Wittgensteinian" right under my name, and it states that much in my biography, which is easily accessible.

Clearly I share some sentiment with his ideas. If you mean by "do you like Wittgenstein" the question "do you like him as a person?", then perhaps you should have been clear about that. And it costs to be so incautious and imprecise. If you cannot be clear about your intentions, that is your meaning, in the face of obviously possible perceived meanings, then it is likely for the best that you should wish not to speak with me. I should not accept the charge of being intolerant. You happened to pull the first and the last straw in one inning.

Do you try to emulate the man's (Wittgenstein) personality?

0 Replies

@Welshie,

Okay, moderator; what do you say to that ^^^?

Is there anything to "give the benefit of the doubt" about? It's clearly unconstructive and clearly irrelevant to the topic.

Should I simply say "Start a new thread"? Should I tell them "send me a PM"? What are the rules which say how I ought to continue?

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

What is it that taught you how to interact with people?, What is it that taught you to wear clothes, cook food, type on a computer, use a bathroom, go to the doctor, write a language, appreciate music....? a single person a group of people? Where are the "acutal people" who taught them? Where is the committee that legislates when it is appropriate to speak in a conversation or when to be polite , or how much to tip, or when its appropriate to belch...? Why do you (likely), despite biological tendencies, feel ashamed when a strange woman sees you naked? Why don't you kiss your cousins? Why don't you punch people with whom you are angry? At what point are all these "abstracted concepts" not real? An un-real thing should definitley not affect you in anyway.

I thought you'd misunderstand me in this way, which is why I explicitly cited:

Quote:

Don't misunderstand me: The actual people do change, but the key here is that "culture" is an abstract notion we define, no different in this respect to "country" or "government".

That is, yes, I am influenced by those around me; there is *real*, physical influence that can be observed, but this physical influence is the result of human interaction. Just as "God", "Government", and "Country" can be interpreted by notional definition to yield empirical influence, so too can "Culture". This does not mean, outside of a metaphorical or figurative context, "Government" or "Culture" are beings. We say "Government" holds power figuratively, as we understand "Government" is an abstract notion.

Quote:

You can do whatever you like with a word's definition and say its a Dingitah, and if the those dinggitah directed the action of of the people in the Kitchen and the linving room, it still takes the dinggitah out of the realm of the purely abstract an into the realm of the physically observable.

"Dinggitah" would not be affecting anything. The people would be affecting each other regardless of what I defined "Dinggitah" as. "Dinggitah" could be interpreted to *hold* empirical influence (as noted above) if I define "Dinggitah" in the appropriate manner. This would not give "Dinggitah" power (or any notion I defined, as notions are not beings), it would simply illustrate my power to attach meaning, application, to notions.

Quote:

The argument is one of interaction; just as a fallen tree functions as a road block. the tree is not acting it just is, It doesn't make the tree any less real because its not wavingstop sign laden branches at you. Something that is can and does hold direct influence over your actions it serves a function.

Our interpretation of the notions can have influence over us, but the notions themselves are simply classifications. The force that makes a tree fall can be demonstrated through an objective method, and is not the same as an abstract notion. A notion is not a defined force, it is simply an idea, as malable as our mind allows. Our interpretation of the idea can have influence, but it is us eliciting the influence, not the notion.

Quote:

Functionalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Given that at least I have accepted the reality of culture it works for me.

"Functionalism is the doctrine that what makes something a thought, desire, pain (or any other type of mental state) depends not on its internal constitution, but solely on its function, or the role it plays, in the cognitive system of which it is a part."

The example provided is "pain", listing the roles this notion plays, characterizing it's meaning, function in linguistics. Again, this is not what I'm debating.

I'm debating against the argument "pain" elicits influence, that it is sentient being in any way, that it has any objective force. "Pain" can be related to, categorized, and have examples cited allowing it a place in our system of linguistic comprehension, but this does not give it objective power. The power is the result of our interpretation and the actions we take. Admittedly, I'm not versed in functionalism, but from what I did read, I didn't get the impression a concept was a "rationalish being with a will". I also didn't get the impression that "Concepts have thoughts" was a proposition. It's possible it advocates this point, but nevertheless I don't agree.

Let me note once again that what you're speaking about is a Meme. This word was coined by Richard Dawkins in his book A Selfish Gene, and is described as:

"Memes act as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures"

I've read most of the book, and I personally don't buy it.

Meme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Reply

@Welshie,

Quote:

This is not a direct argument for a sentient being capable of rational thought. It is an argument that the "concept" in question by its "being" functions in many of the same ways its originators (humans in the culture) do.

How do we function? Is it even useful to talk about the behavior of people within a culture solely in terms of their "function" with respect to that culture? Does it even make sense to talk about "the functions of humanity in cultures"? Which cultures? Are you supposing there is a "grand culture", one which embodies them all? What does that look like, and what functions would a person serve in this "grand culture"?

You seem to speak in a matter-of-fact tone about our function. You seem to be taking something seriously for granted. I thought we gave up with the "human-as-function" analogy when we gave up Aristotle's conception of human purpose.

Quote:

Functions can be said to be influence. Its mere presence as a being or an "institutionalized" system within a culture influences the the constituency of that culture to act this way or that, believe this or that etc... It is also influenced and reshaped by the constituency. Neither the institutionalized system (concept) nor the constituency is easily changed. Its direct influence over the constituency however functions as the will of the culture. So I'm saying here that its functions are the same as will and rational change of thought within its parameters. Some might argue, and I'm still on the fence with this one that its function is the same as its being, or that since it functions as a rationalish being with a will then it must be so.

Again: What does it mean to say a concept (or a function) has a will?

(1) "Concept X has the belief Y."

What are the truth-functions for (1). Can you give them?

(2) "Concept Z is (rationally) deliberating whether to A or to B tomorrow."

What are the truth-conditions of this proposition or propositions of its sort?

Can you give them?

1 Reply

Can a concept have thought?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know