GENIUS FORUMS

Nick wrote in another thread:

There is quite a big difference between smiply making distinctions, and taking the next step of defining them. Defining your environment requires a significant amount of consciousness.

I don't think there is a difference between making a simple distinction and defining a thing. I think defining is a very simple process, so much so that it's no different from simply making a distinction. I think the difference comes in when the definition is used consistently and therefore consciously, but I don't think there's a separate word for that. Unless you want to call it "enlightenment". But I don't think you have to be enlightened to use a definition consciously.

Perhaps the idea can be teased out a bit more.

Weininger had the idea that the first approach to distinguishing anything at all was midway between the specific and unique identity of a thing, and the most basic distinction of all. The process starts with a vague awareness of a thing being comparable to all kinds of things it isn't, and then begins to clarify it in two directions, simultaneously. In one direction, the contrast is to "thing", in the other the contrast is to the complex categorisation of all things.

Maybe Nick could explain what he meant.

Defining is when you establish the meaning of a term by pointing out synonyms for it, or otherwise by pointing out what it's supposed to reference in the actual world via your physical actions (like if one were to point to a beagle-dog made from Jello and say "Jeaglog"). Redefining is when you take an already established word (like "causation"), ignore the meaning it previously had (like "event P determinately follows form event Q), and then give it a new meaning (like "P exists while conditions Q exist").

Defining can also be used to describe a thing that's taken as a perfect example of the term or phrase that describes it. For instance, one can say "Monsieur! Your performance simply defiiiiiined how that Jew's harp should be played!" Not that anyone would say that, but you get the idea.

Lastly, a person can define something by taking a physical object and pointing out terms that describe it. Like if one were to see a Jeaglog, and suggest that it looks like a beagle-dog made out of Jello.

Also, I'm not sure what making distinctions has to do with defining. One can define an object in my first and third sense of the term (described above) by simply drawing automatic associations within their neocortex. To define something in my second sense of the term (also described above) you simply have to impress someone who happens to use the term in that way often. Obviously, it's a bit more difficult to define something in the second sense then it is in the first sense, given that not too many folks use the word like that anymore. Although, if one were to really try I bet they could do it. It strikes me as a noble pursuit, even if it is a bit silly.

I wrote:

I think the difference comes in when the definition is used consistently and therefore consciously, but I don't think there's a separate word for that.

No, I wasn't thinking straight. "Defining" is a remembered, consistently used distinction.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Also, I'm not sure what making distinctions has to do with defining. One can define an object in my first and third sense of the term (described above) by simply drawing automatic associations within their neocortex.

Well, an object is a part of reality. It comes into existence as a separate object when a conscious mind defines its boundaries. So, I see "defining" as being the distinguishing of an object and remembering that distinction long enough to think about it.

I think the act of attaching a word to a distinction is incidental. It's not the primary purpose of defining something. The word just gives the distinction more psychological significance, but it's not necessary to become conscious of something (i.e. remember a distinction that has been made).

I think the best way for me to explain myself is to expand on the process of identification and creating definitions. First imagaine that you have never seen, touched, or heard of sand and water before. Now you are blindfolded and asked to stick one of your hands into a bowl of sand and one into a bowl of water without knowing which is which. Your first reaction is the immediate identification of two distinctly different substances. Now I don't yet consider this defining, because all one has done is noticed a difference because their nervous system made an involuntary distinction. Then very soon after you begin to apply conscious thought creating the memories which will define these two substances based on their properties. So although these two processes happen very close to eachother, the act of defining takes a higher sort of consciousness in order to be completed.

An example of an organism that makes distinctions without defining them in memory would probably be an insect because like us, they do go through the immediate reaction of noticing a difference of how something affects them, but it never goes beyond that.

So to answer your question; what is defining? I would say defining is the memorization of something's properties or purpose in relation to one's self.

Nick Treklis wrote:I think the best way for me to explain myself is to expand on the process of identification and creating definitions. First imagaine that you have never seen, touched, or heard of sand and water before.

I don't think this is a good place to begin. It's too hypothetical and removed from the real world.

Wetness, envelopment, darkness, pleasure -- in contrast to dryness, exposure, light, pain - contemplating these basic things is where we should begin if we want to understand the process of making definitions, because these are the first distinctions that we are forced to make in some way or another when we are forced out of the womb.

It's not as if we are conscious of these distinctions shortly after birth. It's all crude reflex. But eventually we start to learn words that describe different objects, words like: rough, smooth, hard, soft, hot, cold, etc, etc.

nick wrote: Now you are blindfolded and asked to stick one of your hands into a bowl of sand and one into a bowl of water without knowing which is which. Your first reaction is the immediate identification of two distinctly different substances. Now I don't yet consider this defining, because all one has done is noticed a difference because their nervous system made an involuntary distinction.

But I wonder if the nervous system only makes distinctions in regards to rewarding, or comforting feelings in contrast to uncomfortable or punishing ones? I think that the essence of all definitions are some basic sets of words to describe two opposing sensations, namely, pleasure and pain. The toddler will have various names for pleasure, such as Mommy, Daddy, Toy, etc. Concomitantly he will learn names for what doesnt feel good: mommy has to leave now, or its time to go home now, or "no, you can't have that", and later "time to go to church", etc.

You'll notice many of the negative, painful things involve a bit more description, more words, more bewilderment, more potential for inquiry. The more pleasurable things are usually simpler to describe, easier to communicate, and tend to shut the inquiring mind off.

I think, when it comes to understanding definitions, the key place to begin, aside from the womb, is to contemplate what Aristotle contemplated:

hot-dry cold-wet pleasure-pain earth-water-air-fire.

I wonder what the difference is (or if there is a significant difference) between describing a sensation, and defining it?

I would think that one first begins becoming more conscious by being sandwiched between two opposing sensations, pain and pleasure and the first stage of developing the mind would involve becoming aquainted with the words that describe different objects and situations that give pain and pleasure.

Nick wrote: what is defining? I would say defining is the memorization of something's properties or purpose in relation to one's self.

we should examine the role sensation has in the defining proccess. Things are often defined in terms of how they effect our body -- whether they cause us to warm up, or become cold, or become itchy, or become sick, etc.

The more complext definitions of maturity begin to break away from sensation, they become less personal, more impersonal.

My Dog clearly has distinctions between things established - - however, emotion, feeling, sensation, whatever you want to call it, that is the foundation for a dog. All dog-thought is prioritized around an unconscious drive for positive feeling and an aversion to negative feeling. The dog doesnt know he has thoughts of course, there is only good feeling and bad feeling, although he does have thought.

Certain memories are associated with positive feelings and other memories with negative. I dog will learn to avoid what he doesnt like and eagerly anticipate what he likes, but I think he is just being controlled by the hungry primitive demands of the cells in his body.

Nick Treklis wrote:I think the best way for me to explain myself is to expand on the process of identification and creating definitions. First imagaine that you have never seen, touched, or heard of sand and water before. Now you are blindfolded and asked to stick one of your hands into a bowl of sand and one into a bowl of water without knowing which is which. Your first reaction is the immediate identification of two distinctly different substances. Now I don't yet consider this defining, because all one has done is noticed a difference because their nervous system made an involuntary distinction. Then very soon after you begin to apply conscious thought creating the memories which will define these two substances based on their properties. So although these two processes happen very close to eachother, the act of defining takes a higher sort of consciousness in order to be completed.

An example of an organism that makes distinctions without defining them in memory would probably be an insect because like us, they do go through the immediate reaction of noticing a difference of how something affects them, but it never goes beyond that.

So to answer your question; what is defining? I would say defining is the memorization of something's properties or purpose in relation to one's self.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I don't think this is a good place to begin. It's too hypothetical and removed from the real world.

Everything we are familiar with was at one point brand new.

Cory Duchesne wrote:But eventually we start to learn words that describe different objects, words like: rough, smooth, hard, soft, hot, cold, etc, etc.

Those words/descriptions didn't create themselves, it's just convenient that they have been around as long as they have been.

Nick wrote:

So to answer your question; what is defining? I would say defining is the memorization of something's properties or purpose in relation to one's self.

This isn't quite true, since the self is also a thing. Ultimately things are related to the Infinite, always. The I is the function of relating anything.

So the self that relates is the same as relating to the Infinite.

Kelly Jones wrote:This isn't quite true, since the self is also a thing. Ultimately things are related to the Infinite, always. The I is the function of relating anything.

So the self that relates is the same as relating to the Infinite.

It's pointless to bring up the infinite in this case since we are discussing an empirical issue. You can say the infinite causes everything and be right, but it doesn't help us understand the worldly processes.

Matt,

I think the act of attaching a word to a distinction is incidental. It's not the primary purpose of defining something. The word just gives the distinction more psychological significance, but it's not necessary to become conscious of something (i.e. remember a distinction that has been made).

I think that a fella becomes conscious of something when the appropriate neurons get excited as a result of data-packets streaming in from his various senses. From a phenomenological perspective, I guess a fella could say that there isn't a cause for someone becoming conscious of something. One merely does. Although, I guess a fella could take the stance that all experiences are necessarily entailed by those that come before them, but I really don't see the need to posit such a thing.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:This isn't quite true, since the self is also a thing. Ultimately things are related to the Infinite, always. The I is the function of relating anything.

So the self that relates is the same as relating to the Infinite.

It's pointless to bring up the infinite in this case since we are discussing an empirical issue. You can say the infinite causes everything and be right, but it doesn't help us understand the worldly processes.

Science is relating portions of the Infinite to each other. Also, the I is always present in science, and the I is the relationship of things to the Infinite.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:I think that a fella becomes conscious of something when the appropriate neurons get excited as a result of data-packets streaming in from his various senses. From a phenomenological perspective, I guess a fella could say that there isn't a cause for someone becoming conscious of something. One merely does. Although, I guess a fella could take the stance that all experiences are necessarily entailed by those that come before them, but I really don't see the need to posit such a thing.

How would you describe the control we have over this process?

Matt Gregory wrote:How would you describe the control we have over this process?

illusory

Kelly Jones wrote: . . . the I is the relationship of things to the Infinite.

You won't find many people in science who can do that. And that's because they don't have a clean and clear "I".

Matt,

How would you describe the control we have over this process?

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't feel like have any sort of control over the process.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:I don't think this is a good place to begin. It's too hypothetical and removed from the real world.

Everything we are familiar with was at one point brand new.

My point is that if we want to understand the definition making proccess, then we should try to keep our examples of how we make distinctions and definitions as empirical and 'as likely' as possible. We should start by consider what the baby is going through during and after birth and then consider how they make distinctions and eventually definitions by moving slowly step by step.

Cory Duchesne wrote:But eventually we start to learn words that describe different objects, words like: rough, smooth, hard, soft, hot, cold, etc, etc.

Nick: Those words/descriptions didn't create themselves, it's just convenient that they have been around as long as they have been.

Ok, but I think its reasonable to think that the first words ever created were very rooted/prioritized around the sensation of good and the sensation of evil. In the begining, whether we are talking about the begining of an individuals life today, or the begining of human culture 10'000 years ago, a words meaning was based on whether or not the thing that it refered to was a good thing or a bad thing. Only after that foundation was established did they have a need to distinguish some good things from other good things, and some evil things from other evil things.

Two things that were both defined as good and perhaps refered to with the same word, were eventually (i'm guessing), compared with each other, differences were noted in texture, taste, or utility, and then each object was given a word of its own.

So I guess that answers the question:

I wonder if the nervous system only makes distinctions in regards to rewarding, or comforting feelings in contrast to uncomfortable or punishing ones?

I think it does that first. But then, once the crude foundation is laid, the nervous system is of course able to distinguish one color, taste or texture constituting one fruit, and give it a name that distinguishes it from the other fruit that is also given a name.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Matt,

How would you describe the control we have over this process?

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't feel like have any sort of control over the process.

I mean the interpretation of the sense data coming in. Do you have any control over it or are you helpless to interpret it the way that you do or is there no interpretation of it at all and it's just objective reality coming in or how do you think of it?

I'm just trying to get a little bit of a handle on where you're coming from. As I always say, it's good to do some reconnaissance before you plan an invasion.

Kelly Jones wrote:Science is relating portions of the Infinite to each other. Also, the I is always present in science, and the I is the relationship of things to the Infinite.

I still don't see how that means what I said "isn't quite right".

Matt,

I mean the interpretation of the sense data coming in. Do you have any control over it or are you helpless to interpret it the way that you do or is there no interpretation of it at all and it's just objective reality coming in or how do you think of it?

To me the interpretation of sensation is just more sensation that comes to me by way of automatic association. Words in my head are just more sounds that get triggered by this or that, linked together by simple memory with other sorts of sensory sensations, and the whole process seems to be guided partially by a human tendency to follow particular rule-sets like those used in grammar.

Cory,

So you think all definitions can find their roots in one's relation to pleasure/pain? That's pretty much what I meant when I said we define things by memorizing something's properties in relation to one's self. I just didn't break it down into pleasure or pain.

On a side note, the farthest back I can remember is when I was about two years old, and the only memories I have from that long ago I was either extremely upset or extremely satisfied. I think this goes to show that the extent to which the ego is aroused plays a huge factor in how well we can recall our memories and how important a certain definition is. Although not so much about the actual process of defining the things that affect us.

Nick Treklis wrote:Cory,

So you think all definitions can find their roots in one's relation to pleasure/pain? That's pretty much what I meant when I said we define things by memorizing something's properties in relation to one's self. I just didn't break it down into pleasure or pain. On a side note, the farthest back I can remember is when I was about two years old, and the only memories I have from that long ago I was either extremely upset or extremely satisfied.

Yes, and as children, our definition of something like sand isnt going to involve a vast geological description of how the sand was created, but instead, sand will be regarded as something as good when one is playing or running in it (or enjoying its dryness and heat on ones naked feet on a hot day) and only an hour later, the sand is then something that is terrible because it is stuck in ones shorts, chaffing on the drive home.

As for the factors which help a human move from a more emotional meaning of a definition, into a definition that invovles a more scientific description, usually there has to be some sort emotional motivation/reward for attaining memorization of these less emotional thoughts/definitions.

I think this goes to show that the extent to which the ego is aroused plays a huge factor in how well we can recall our memories and how important a certain definition is. Although not so much about the actual process of defining the things that affect us.

Yes, thats right, the thing first affects us emotionally, or sensually.

After we identify it as something that affects us in that sensual way, then, if the conditions are right, we may proceed to describe it more impersonally. I question whether we will do this unless there is an emotional reward for doing it though. :)

An example of how some grown adults never manage to rise above the less refined emotions:

Church can first be regarded as something that is simply a boring torture, something bad - then - twenty, or thirty years later, after some sinning, despair and guilt, it may become something that offers hope and salvation, something that justifies all of the sadistic, mean-spirited acts, the seemingly meaningless pain, confused thoughts and compulsive, emotional behavior.

And so most people fail to establish clear, impersonal definitions for things. Things can be described superficially to an extent, but their meaning is either good or bad, depending on how one is emotionally involved with an interpretation of ones generally sorrowful past.

For most people, ones ultimate interpretation of life rests upon what things give good emotions and what things give bad emotions. For instance - wisdom is what I value, and foolishness is what I do not want to deal with.

Some of us, twenty years after experiencing it as a torturous bore, come to regard church as a social institution that functions as an opiate for the guilt-besotted masses.

Our definitions seem to be determined by the details that we are capable of paying attention to.

Personally, I find it way easier to pay attention to something that directly supports or attacks something that I value emotionally.

if someone is saying something that doesnt have any relationship to what I already value emotionally - then it goes in one ear and out the other.

They say children with ADD are unusually pre-occupied with what is stimulating to them. Therefore, when you try to get them to concentrate, they generally can't because their mind is flicking to one emotional interest to another, rather than the task at hand.

Kevin,

True, but i wasn't talking about scientists, but science. IE. doing science wisely.

Would John Mather's Nobel prize winning research into cosmic microwave radiation be interpreted as "work on interpreting the rippled fingerprint left behind by cosmic creation" if scientists (or science journalists) had any wisdom?



Nick wrote:

Nick wrote:So to answer your question; what is defining? I would say defining is the memorization of something's properties or purpose in relation to one's self.

Kelly: This isn't quite true, since the self is also a thing. Ultimately things are related to the Infinite, always. The I is the function of relating anything. So the self that relates is the same as relating to the Infinite.

....Science is relating portions of the Infinite to each other. Also, the I is always present in science, and the I is the relationship of things to the Infinite.

Nick: I still don't see how that means what I said "isn't quite right".

You related things to the self, rather than to the Infinite, ultimately. Subtle but infinite difference.