> Ted King wrote:
>>> Ted King wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>>
newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> Ted King yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <7pSdnaviTuySfrfYnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@
comcast.com>,
>>>>> "gibbs"
fakedemailaddress.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that what I am looking for is an explanation of the
>>>>>>> conceptual framework....So, it isn't that I am looking
>>>>>>> for an explanation for the conceptual framework that leads me to
>>>>>>> assume
>>>>>>> an external "reality", it is that the conceptual framework -
>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> sensory impressions and other things - has a relationship with a
>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> reality independent of experience that forms at least a partial
>>>>>>> explanation for the nature of experience. Of course, that
>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>> could be partially or all wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd question the whole notion of "the conceptual framework" and how
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> word
>>>>>> "concept" is used. In an unsual way!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not very confident that I have a grasp of what a conceptual
>>>>> framework or "the conceptual framework" is either. I do have a rough
>>>>> notion that I've been using so that I could delve into other matters
>>>>> -
>>>>> but perhaps doing that has been a mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume andy-k means by the term "framework" that there are
>>>>> connections
>>>>> between concepts that sort of create a meta-level conceptual
>>>>> structure
>>>>> of other concepts. I imagine that there could be multiple meta-levels
>>>>> of
>>>>> concept structures. That does imply a hierarchy of structures and
>>>>> that
>>>>> may not be what he is thinking. Perhaps he is thinking more along the
>>>>> lines of a structure where the elements function to "hold" each other
>>>>> together. Or maybe he is thinking of a combination of the two.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "concept" part of a conceptual framework is what I am least clear
>>>>> about. Is a concept the "result of" processing pre-conceptual
>>>>> information or is it a spontaneous creation not resulting from
>>>>> processing of pre-conceptual information?
>>>>
>>>> What I was thinking about here was sort of "fundamental" concepts. It
>>>> seems that there are many concepts that result from the processing of
>>>> other concepts - so, of course, they wouldn't be the result of
>>>> processing pre-conceptual information. But there must be some kinds of
>>>> "basic" concepts or else there would have to be an infinite regress of
>>>> concepts.
>>>>
>>>> Ted
>>>
>>> The subject of infinite regress interests me, and I'm
>>> not sure how my general viewpoint on the matter
>>> joins with your concerns on the specific issue of
>>> concepts, but I'll state my general view anyway.
>>>
>>> I don't think causation is linear. There has never
>>> been a case where exactly one cause has been
>>> observed to result in exactly one result. It is
>>> always the case that multiple conditions lead to
>>> multiple results. In general, some of the conditions
>>> are earlier instantiations of the results -- that is,
>>> the whole participates in the creation of its parts.
>>> I cannot exist without a liver, but there would be
>>> no liver without a me to have it. Causation is
>>> cyclical, not linear.
>>>
>>> As you "go down the heirarchy" of conditions
>>> from more inclusive wholes to their parts the
>>> distinction between the whole and the part gets
>>> weaker and weaker. I think that at the bottom
>>> of 'creation' just like the bottom of a muddy
>>> river things just peter out when you reach a
>>> condition where the wholes and parts cannot
>>> be distinguished.
>>>
>>> An alternative way of avoiding infinite regression
>>> is for the bottom of existence to be pure chaos --
>>> but I'm not so fond of the Discordian solution
>>> myself.
>>>
>>> Of course, infinite regress is a possibility...
>>>
>>> Anyhow, to the extent I've thought it through, I
>>> think that instead of basic concepts what you
>>> have is a web of concepts and 'pre-concepts'
>>> feeding each other. You might be able to wander
>>> off into electrical fields and whatnot...
>>> ---
>>
>> I did present essentially the idea of a web of concepts as being a
>> possibility when I mentioned "a structure where the elements function to
>> 'hold' each other together".
>>
>> The infinite regress I mentioned is entailed by a logical inference that
>> follows from positing a particular nature for concepts, it is not
>> necessarily a product of some posited causal relations (although it
>> could be). With respect to the logical inference: suppose someone
>> posited that any concept is the result of the processing of other
>> concepts. For there to be Concept A, then, there would have to at least
>> be Concept B for A to have been processed from. Concept B, in turn,
>> would need to have been the result of processing other concepts... and
>> so on. Infinite regress. I only brought it up to illustrate the point
>> that though there are concepts that are the result of processing of
>> other concepts, not all concepts could be of that nature. And it seems
>> to me that concepts that are not the product of processing of other
>> concepts would have to be either be spontaneous creations or the result
>> of processing pre-conceptual information.
>>
>> There was an unstated assumption in my formulation. Suppose someone
>> posited that any concept is the result of processing of other concepts
>> and further they posited that there could be a "circle" of such concepts
>> - where A is a product of B which is a product of C which is a product
>> of A. I assumed that where each concept is considered to be a unique
>> idea, such an "arrangement" is nonsense. I assumed this because being a
>> product implies being contingent. If A is contingent on B and B is
>> contingent on C, then is seems to follow that A is contingent on C. But
>> if C is contingent on A then that implies that A is contingent on
>> itself. That makes no sense. As always, I could be wrong in my analysis
>> of that, though. For example, I can imagine something analogous to a
>> circle of dominos standing on edge. When one tumbles over it knocks over
>> the next domino... which knocks over the next, and so on. But following
>> along behind is a little robot that picks the dominos up and resets them
>> before the sequence of falling dominos has a chance to "come around".
>> The circle of dominos could just keep falling as long as the little
>> robot stayed ahead of the cascade of fallings. I'm not sure that such an
>> analogy could aptly be applied to a conceptual framework though.
>
> Rather than a little robot, the dominos might be
> being pushed back up by the falling of other dominos
> not usually considered part of your circle of
> dominos -- a general web rather than a lattice.
> A web of interconnecton with nothing actually
> separate from anything else. (You wouldn't
> be able to perceive something which was
> actually separate anyway because at the
> very least light acts as a connector within the
> web. Being actually separate implies being
> totally unobservable.)
>
> I think you understand my problem with
> contingency. It is never the case that a
> single B is contingent upon a single A. It is
> always the coming together of conditions,
> and never a single cause with a single
> result. You can abstract a dominate
> cause and a major effect, but this is always
> an approximation. Side effects are the rule,
> not the exception.
I think I should have considered my response to gibbs expression of his
reservations about the terms "conceptual framework" and "concept" up the
thread a bit better than I did. I came pretty close to just free
associating a response rather than giving it a good think through. I'm
not sure what exactly gibbs thinks is the problem presented by the way
the terms are being used, so I should have simply just asked that
instead of babbling on. My apologies.
Oh, and I think I do understand what you are saying about the problem
with single causes and single results. I was just trying to say that if
someone posited a particular stance with respect to the nature of
concepts then such and such would follow. Clearly you do not posit
anything like that.
Ted
