Thought-Objects

@de budding,

Dan,

de_budding wrote:

Amen to that, I have had many an argument which was a misunderstanding of words rather than a confrontation of ideas or opinions. And it is interesting to think with regards to- Hesperus is Phosphorus, that every thing is subject to possible change within ourselfs.

[/COLOR]
To dot the i's: every thought-thing is subject to change within ourselves Wink

Quote:

So would Frege say that there is direct correlation between nouns and thought objects?

If so, do thought objects suffer from the same ambiguity and vagueness as words can?

The correlation is that words are predications which are based on thought-objects, which are also predications (of perceptions). So yes, thought objects suffer from the same things. But not from the problems surfacing from trying to communicate something to another for thought-objects are private. A speech act i added to the equasion. The speech act (forming a predication and voicing that on the basis of the thought object) is the difference between the thought-object and the word-object (noun).

Quote:

For example- when is a table not a table?

When it is made of metal, when we paint it, when we cut its legs off? How about when we attach a pair of benches to it- is it a picnic bench or a table?

[/I]
When our definitions belonging to the thought-object of a certain object make it fall outside of the definitions of the though-object "table" (a particular, not a universal).

Quote:

Also mixed connotations blur the boundaries of words, a snake is a legless reptile but it is also something or someone that's slimy or someone who is devious- 'you snake in the grass' etc.

This is not something which is limited to words; it is a part of predications. It happens with thought-objects as well as speech-objects. The predication creates a transition from potentiality to actuality because of the transition pereption to predication by use of the a priori intuitions. The intuitions forces the mind to make the perceptions to conform to the categoria which clearly shows the inaccuracy of the perceptions. The mind however also checks out its frame of reference. When conflicts arise between the frame of reference and the intuitions an internal conflict arises (which is a complicated thing and may take a seperate topic) and the definitions beloning to the thought-object of ourselves (EGO) are conculted. If these are threatened by the a priori intuitions a deni-all act is made and the frame of reference is given priority over the a priori intuitions. That is how the blurs spring to life and are maintained. As soon as the thought-object of ourselves is altered or dropped alltogether the a priori intuitions can be given priority over the frame of reference, allowing the creation (or a modification) of a thought-object more in line with the thing-in-itself; using less of a "bending".

Boy, I sure hope this clears matters up instead of muddles the water..

@Arjen,

No I don't think it muddles anything, all it does is highlight the terms I need to redefine in order to understand the statement as a whole. I am going to go a'googling and glossary scanning for 'frame of reference' and 'a priori intuitions' or similar stuff Smile

Also last night I found this sweet diagram in a book called 'Introducing Philosopy'...

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i290/xjxjp/danspage.jpg

Isn't it just darling. Very Happy

Thanks for the response Arjen,
Dan.

@de budding,

@VideCorSpoon,

Ok, I think this topic is still a little vague in my mind.

So, thought objects are like our way of perceiving the object in our mind based upon the way we hold true to it from reality?

So, this can explain why if I learn a new word, I all of a sudden feel like I'm hearing it a hundred times. It was there before in the environment, but never perceived unless thought object was provided. (Or am I completely lost here?).

Also, I was reading the theory of forms. Would light be considered atemporal because it is a reference to the equation in time itself, sort of. lol.

And does it necessarily have to be words that relate to the thought objects? Why not qualia? What is the thought object of learning the word qualia?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

So, thought objects are like our way of perceiving the object in our mind based upon the way we hold true to it from reality?

I am wondering what exactly you mean with 'hold rue to it from reality'. It is not a way of saying things I am familiar with.

I am going to try to describe what takes place in a short way. I think the opening post might be more comprehensive though.

When one observes something an image of what is observed is caught on our retina. Of this image there are things we understand. That part is 'grasped' (to grasp=fassen) by our brain and it is this which forms a thought-object. A thought object is not the object itself, not is it the entire observed image, it is what is understood of what one has observed. After that the mind can 'percieve' it.

Quote:

So, this can explain why if I learn a new word, I all of a sudden feel like I'm hearing it a hundred times. It was there before in the environment, but never perceived unless thought object was provided. (Or am I completely lost here?).

It is one of the factors which explains that, yes. I think one needs to have grasped something once before one can understand it, and therefore 'percieve' (percieving is an activity of the mind; the recognising of something it has previously understood; it is derived from the Latin perceptio) it.

Quote:

Also, I was reading the theory of forms. Would light be considered atemporal because it is a reference to the equation in time itself, sort of. lol.

Well, this seems a little off topic and the theory of forms (Aristotle) has very little to do with light being temporal; but like all things carries something atemporal along with it. I think three more topics are needed to discuss this properly.

Quote:

And does it necessarily have to be words that relate to the thought objects? Why not qualia? What is the thought object of learning the word qualia?

I do not understand what exactly you mean with 'it'. I do know that qualia are what things seem to us and are part of an empirical world view. Thought-objects are the mental 'pictures' our brain has 'grasped' from something observed. It does not have the pretence of belonging to the object itself, baut qualia do; in the same way as a thought-object of the word 'qualia' is not a qualium itself.

Does this help you along?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

I am wondering what exactly you mean with 'hold rue to it from reality'. It is not a way of saying things I am familiar with.

I haven't read any aristotle so I don't know these new terms.

Arjen wrote:

When one observes something an image of what is observed is caught on our retina. Of this image there are things we understand. That part is 'grasped' (to grasp=fassen) by our brain and it is this which forms a thought-object. A thought object is not the object itself, not is it the entire observed image, it is what is understood of what one has observed. After that the mind can 'percieve' it.

This is what I thought it to be. But I lust thought I recognized similarities between qualia and thought objects

@Holiday20310401,

Quote:

When one observes something an image of what is observed is caught on our retina

Arjen,

Are we talking about vision specifically? I was under the impression that thought-objects are the constituents we use to develop our mental world-models (hence the survival value and evolutionary existence of such a mental mechanism [the world-model is a great survival aid]); for me this means a thought-object must encompass more than just visual information. Surely a thought-object, if it was going to work as part of a world-model, would need to connote the causal (as in cause & effect) uniformity of whatever oject the thought-object references. Otherwise what would be the evolutionary point of us developing thought-objects?

Dan.

@de budding,

Hi Dan,

You are rightin saying that thought-objects encompass more than just sight. I was using it as an example; like the telescope in the opening post. Thank you for pointing out that I was not clear in this matter. I would like to say that likewise you are not completely clear. We you thought-objects to build our world-models, but our world-models are thought-objects as well.

My post was ment to get Holiday introduced into the subject. I'll judge according to his posts and questions where he wnats to go and how deep the answers are that he is looking for. If I run right to the end things will not make sense to him. At this point he is still wrestling with the terms used in philosophy so I felt it important to get him introduced, but not get too caught up in my own reasonings.

@Arjen,

Ah I see; well I will take some time to ponder the implications of the world-model as a thought-object. Is this what Richard Dawkins might call a consciousness raiser? A thought-object that unlocks a level of understanding not accsesible without said thought-object?

Dan. Smile

@de budding,

Actually it is quite the oppsite. Any thought-object dims the awareness of the person wielding it. That would take a lot of time to understand though. I do not think it will fit in the model you have formed of the world in your mind...which proves it.
Smile

@Arjen,

I don't think it dims the awareness, the thought object is always limited to potential that we have underlying anyways. Causality perhaps?

I really don't understand. It seems to me that thought objects don't parallel the reality we are in. Thought objects allow for reality to be something more in our minds. I dunno whether I mean spatially or semantically, not sure yet.

@Holiday20310401,

Yes, you are right that thought-objects are something else than reality. In our minds it takes the place of reality though, seperating the thought-object from reality in our thinking is impossible because thinking is making use of thought objects. So, when one has realised that reality is different from the thought-object it has at the same time defined in what ways it is different and those definitions are thought-objects. So, the new reality is a thought-object as well. The only way to allow 'reality' to be percieved is by not thinking because thinking makes use of the thought-objects and therefore percieving (which is an activity of the mind) is always a circulatory occasion because the thought-objects will take the place of 'reality' and therefore one percieves the thought-objects one had decided on before the fact.

Hope this helps.

@Arjen,

I dunno, your last statements seem contradictory.

And where are you dividing actuality from reality here?

"The only way to allow reality to be perceived" is a silly question I'd think because I thought reality was the perception of the environment, otherwise not perceiving is just actuality.

@Holiday20310401,

No, I ca understand this would come across as a contradiction though. In reality it was an explanation of the existence of the situation, while pointing out where not to fall for the 'flat' world view and the paradox created by it. A paradox is a seeming contradiction; not a real one and you seem to think that the seeming contradiction is a real contradiction and therefore take it as 'false'.

I am going to start a topic on paradoxes because this will get us nowhere this way.

@Arjen,

Arjen;21746 wrote:

Yes, you are right that thought-objects are something else than reality. In our minds it takes the place of reality though, seperating the thought-object from reality in our thinking is impossible because thinking is making use of thought objects. So, when one has realised that reality is different from the thought-object it has at the same time defined in what ways it is different and those definitions are thought-objects. So, the new reality is a thought-object as well. The only way to allow 'reality' to be percieved is by not thinking because thinking makes use of the thought-objects and therefore percieving (which is an activity of the mind) is always a circulatory occasion because the thought-objects will take the place of 'reality' and therefore one percieves the thought-objects one had decided on before the fact.

Hope this helps.

I can relate to this. I like to say the "real is rational." I would argue that all objects are thought-objects. This isn't to deny sensation, but only to emphasize that sensation is organized into objects by concepts. We enter a room and our mind automatically cuts it into objects. It's not just a mess of color. We use our stereoscopic vision to relate these same objects three-dimensionally. And we can combine simpler thought objects into more abstract thought objects, eventually to the self-conscious point where we can have conversations like this. Smile

---------- Post added 04-16-2010 at 02:31 PM ----------

de_budding;21507 wrote:

Arjen,

Are we talking about vision specifically? I was under the impression that thought-objects are the constituents we use to develop our mental world-models (hence the survival value and evolutionary existence of such a mental mechanism [the world-model is a great survival aid]); for me this means a thought-object must encompass more than just visual information. Surely a thought-object, if it was going to work as part of a world-model, would need to connote the causal (as in cause & effect) uniformity of whatever oject the thought-object references. Otherwise what would be the evolutionary point of us developing thought-objects?

Dan.

Excellent point. Do we not synthesize not only vision but also the other senses, AND notions such as causality, time, etc.? It would seem that concepts sew experience into something meaningful... Smile

Philosophy Forum

Thought-Objects

Quick Links

My Account

able2know