login about faq

This is a spin off question from my question about love.

I agree that we form concepts of reality via induction using data from perception and then apply deduction to build more abstractions on top of those initial induction-derived concepts.

However, since we can make errors in judgement by ignoring reality (e.g., ignore the fact that someone is dishonest by rationalizing their white lies), this means that our concepts about that person may be inaccurate.

Given that our feelings toward that person is an automatic response to our concepts of them, why then is it wrong for me to say that the feeling of love that we have toward someone is base on what we have in our head which may or may not match reality?

Am I making a philosophical error here or is the rejection that I'm getting a rejection of something else that may or may not apply to the concepts that I have in my mind?

asked Jun 15 '12 at 12:15

Humbug's gravatar image

Humbug
5181285

edited Jun 16 '12 at 10:52

Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Greg Perkins ♦♦
1002425618

Concepts are not formed by induction. Causal principles such as "heating water makes it boil" or "controls breed controls" are formed by induction.

A concept is a named classification of entities (noun), attributes (adjective), actions (verb), relationships (preposition), or other things which a single word can integrate.

". . . and then apply deduction to build more abstractions on top of those initial induction-derived concepts."

That's a false view of human cognition. It's rationalistic. Deduction doesn't build abstractions. It just makes an implicit concrete truth explicit.

(Jun 17 '12 at 00:51) John Paquette ♦ John%20Paquette's gravatar image

I get it. I will need to hit the Epistemology book after I've finished the Psychology of Self Esteem one. :)

(Jun 17 '12 at 01:24) Humbug Humbug's gravatar image

...we form concepts of reality via induction using data from perception and then apply deduction to build more abstractions on top of those initial induction-derived concepts.

Observing reality and integrating what one observes does not end after we have formed some number of concepts of reality, then being replaced by deduction. Deduction is only an aspect of integration. It is a process of ferreting out contradictions and checking one's premises to revise one's thinking, i.e., a powerful tool for making one's integrations correspond fully to reality. But there is nearly always new data to consider, new observations to integrate, when forming new knowledge. Only rarely do we deduce new conclusions entirely from existing knowledge, and those cases are more like not fully comprehending all the implications of our knowledge in the first place. It's usually new discoveries (new observations) that trigger such expanded understanding of what we knew before, and the overall cognitive process is one of looking at reality and identifying what we observe. Logic is only a tool (though a powerful one) to assist us in the integration process.

Also, properly integrated knowledge does not lead one to think in terms of one's "mental contructs" as apart from objective reality. Properly integrated knowledge is knowledge of reality. It is reality that we understand and evaluate. If a rational person is mistaken in his understanding of reality, he eventually discovers it and corrects his error.

answered Jun 15 '12 at 16:22

Ideas%20for%20Life's gravatar image

Ideas for Life ♦
467718

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×145
×21

Asked: Jun 15 '12 at 12:15

Seen: 1,343 times

Last updated: Jun 17 '12 at 01:24