Odd Question

[TranceNRG]

Hi,

I'm just sitting in one of my classes, waiting for the class to start.
This question came to my mind.

Q: How would you explain the idea of concepts to an individual whose brain has not developed to understand "abstractness" ?

In other words, how would you define concept to an individual who cannot learn what "abstract" is?

[joen270]

ab⋅stract
  /adj. æbˈstrækt, ˈæbstrækt; n. ˈæbstrækt; v. æbˈstrækt for 10–13, ˈæbstrækt for 14/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj. ab-strakt, ab-strakt; n. ab-strakt; v. ab-strakt for 10–13, ab-strakt for 14] Show IPA
Use abstract in a Sentence
See web results for abstract
See images of abstract
–adjective
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
5. Fine Arts.
a. of or pertaining to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., esp. with reference to their relationship to one another.
b. (often initial capital letter) pertaining to the nonrepresentational art styles of the 20th century.
–noun
6. a summary of a text, scientific article, document, speech, etc.; epitome.
7. something that concentrates in itself the essential qualities of anything more extensive or more general, or of several things; essence.
8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.
–verb (used with object)
10. to draw or take away; remove.
11. to divert or draw away the attention of.
12. to steal.
13. to consider as a general quality or characteristic apart from specific objects or instances: to abstract the notions of time, space, and matter.
14. to make an abstract of; summarize.
—Idioms
15. abstract away from, to omit from consideration.
16. in the abstract, without reference to a specific object or instance; in theory: beauty in the abstract.

[Rune]

If a person couldnot use abstraction they would, to my reasoning, not be able to use language - the entire notion of spoken language relies on our ability to abstract.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by joen270

ab⋅stract
  /adj. ?bˈstr?kt, ˈ?bstr?kt; n. ˈ?bstr?kt; v. ?bˈstr?kt for 10?13, ˈ?bstr?kt for 14/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj. ab-strakt, ab-strakt; n. ab-strakt; v. ab-strakt for 10?13, ab-strakt for 14] Show IPA
Use abstract in a Sentence
See web results for abstract
See images of abstract
?adjective
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
5. Fine Arts.
a. of or pertaining to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., esp. with reference to their relationship to one another.
b. (often initial capital letter) pertaining to the nonrepresentational art styles of the 20th century.
?noun
6. a summary of a text, scientific article, document, speech, etc.; epitome.
7. something that concentrates in itself the essential qualities of anything more extensive or more general, or of several things; essence.
8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.
?verb (used with object)
10. to draw or take away; remove.
11. to divert or draw away the attention of.
12. to steal.
13. to consider as a general quality or characteristic apart from specific objects or instances: to abstract the notions of time, space, and matter.
14. to make an abstract of; summarize.
?Idioms
15. abstract away from, to omit from consideration.
16. in the abstract, without reference to a specific object or instance; in theory: beauty in the abstract.

???

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by Rune

If a person couldnot use abstraction they would, to my reasoning, not be able to use language - the entire notion of spoken language relies on our ability to abstract.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question.

I think you do understand my question.
However, would my question make more sense if we substitute language with communication?

Is there any way for a person who lacks abstraction to learn and understand what concept means?

[Whoda]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

I think you do understand my question.
However, would my question make more sense if we substitute language with communication?

Is there any way for a person who lacks abstraction to learn and understand what concept means?

Yep. It all boils down to communication, by any method

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by Whoda

Yep. It all boils down to communication, by any method

Could you elaborate?

[~Serpent~]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Hi,

I'm just sitting in one of my classes, waiting for the class to start.
This question came to my mind.

Q: How would you explain the idea of concepts to an individual whose brain has not developed to understand "abstractness" ?

In other words, how would you define concept to an individual who cannot learn what "abstract" is?

Would you not agree that the whole human experience is an abstract one? Every thought, and every emotion is abstract in the sense that it is the individual that colors all of them and defines them subjectively. The concept of God is abstract, because every individual has their own understanding or interpretation of the divine. Every human "believes" in something that cannot be objectified in the absolute sense, hence "abstract". Even atheists believe in concepts such as love, hate, justice, betrayal, and every single emotion or thought that humans have, are abstract ideas.

So my answer to your question may be, there is probably no human brain that does not function without the abstract experience.

[SteR-]

blimey trance.. that's a bit deep isn't it

[psamty]

This is why the Buddha said that consciousness does not exist byself. It co-arises with the object of consciousness. There is no seeing-consciousness without sight (and light), there is no hearing-consciousness without ears, and so on. Similarly, without the faculty of abstractions, concepts do not exist.

This is the theory of codependent arising, or pratītyasamutpāda.

[mehdi84]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Hi,

I'm just sitting in one of my classes, waiting for the class to start.
This question came to my mind.

Q: How would you explain the idea of concepts to an individual whose brain has not developed to understand "abstractness" ?

In other words, how would you define concept to an individual who cannot learn what "abstract" is?

I believe it to be no different then explaining any concept, to someone who doesn't yet understand the foundations it is based upon. The foundations must be understood and appreciated before any derivatives of it can be properly understood. Of course, sometimes we can get lucky and the idea being explained can lead way to the foundation being self-deduced. The latter could, for example, manifest through Socratic questioning (which I adore for that very reason).

If one is blocked from understanding a foundational concept, for whatever reason, then I believe it to be impossible for them to understand all derivatives of it. For that particular person, they would have to superficially accept or refuse all related material.

In short: generally, I don't believe you can.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by mehdi84

I believe it to be no different then explaining any concept, to someone who doesn't yet understand the foundations it is based upon. The foundations must be understood and appreciated before any derivatives of it can be properly understood. Of course, sometimes we can get lucky and the idea being explained can lead way to the foundation being self-deduced. The latter could, for example, manifest through Socratic questioning (which I adore for that very reason).

If one is blocked from understanding a foundational concept, for whatever reason, then I believe it to be impossible for them to understand all derivatives of it. For that particular person, they would have to superficially accept or refuse all related material.

In short: generally, I don't believe you can.

This still assumes that their brain CAN comprehend abstractness, just that they have not done so YET. There are people who may lack the biological ability to comprehend the notion of an abstract thing. Just like a blind man cannot understand sight, or what something "looks like".

It all goes back to co-dependent arising, pratītyasamutpāda.

Imasmiṃ sati, idaṃ hoti. (When this is, that is.)
Imass’ uppādā, idaṃ uppajjati. (From the arising of this comes the arising of that.)
Imasmiṃ asati, idaṃ na hoti. (When this isn't, that isn't.)
Imassa nirodhā, idhaṃ nirujjhati. (From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.)

Many people dislike these ideas, because they inherently force one to challenge pre-defined concepts that have been passed down by culture, tradition or religion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Wd...buddha&f=false

[mehdi84]

Originally Posted by psamty

This still assumes that their brain CAN comprehend abstractness, just that they have not done so YET. There are people who may lack the biological ability to comprehend the notion of an abstract thing. Just like a blind man cannot understand sight, or what something "looks like".

It all goes back to co-dependent arising, pratītyasamutpāda.

Imasmiṃ sati, idaṃ hoti. (When this is, that is.)
Imass?€™ uppādā, idaṃ uppajjati. (From the arising of this comes the arising of that.)
Imasmiṃ asati, idaṃ na hoti. (When this isn't, that isn't.)
Imassa nirodhā, idhaṃ nirujjhati. (From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.)

Many people dislike these ideas, because they inherently force one to challenge pre-defined concepts that have been passed down by culture, tradition or religion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Wd...buddha&f=false

Absolutley. This is actually what I was trying to get at in the second paragraph.

If one is blocked from understanding a foundational concept [such as abstraction], for whatever reason, then I believe it to be impossible for them to understand all derivatives of it. For that particular person, they would have to superficially accept or refuse all related material.

If a man is born blind, he must superficially accept the sky is blue and the grass is green -- or simply refuse to all together.

Though, I may not understand what pratītyasamutpāda is from your explanation. From those four lines, I interpret it to refer to causality. However, if that is the case, then I do not see understand what it's relevance is. Please elaborate, if you don't mind.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by mehdi84

Absolutley. This is actually what I was trying to get at in the second paragraph.

If a man is born blind, he must superficially accept the sky is blue and the grass is green -- or simply refuse to all together.

Yes, I think we are agreeing here.

Originally Posted by mehdi84

Though, I may not understand what pratītyasamutpāda is from your explanation. From those four lines, I interpret it to refer to causality. However, if that is the case, then I do not see understand what it's relevance is. Please elaborate, if you don't mind.

The Buddha uses a similar kind of thought experiment to demonstrate the essential transience of all material things. Everything we see in the universe, according to the Buddha, is a result of co-dependent arising. Therefore, nothing really is independent or permanent, as everything is only sustained by some other set of things, which are themselves sustained by other things, in a never-ending chain.

With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise
With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises
With Consciousness as condition, Name and Form arise
With Name & Form as condition, Sense Gates arise
With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises
And so on....

This is why the Buddha urges his followers not to get too attached to any thing, concept or idea, because ultimately they are all transient. Depending on the branch of Buddhism that is followed, the first cause is sometimes cited as Brahman, or the Eternal Spirit. Most Buddhists however, do not believe in such a God as an independent entity, because even the belief in God is a sort of attachment.

[Enso]

Sounds like a test in skillful means for you Trance. Try to relate the abstract in simple terms using metaphors....and, since they may not be adept at them either, the simpler the better.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by ~Serpent~

Would you not agree that the whole human experience is an abstract one? Every thought, and every emotion is abstract in the sense that it is the individual that colors all of them and defines them subjectively. The concept of God is abstract, because every individual has their own understanding or interpretation of the divine. Every human "believes" in something that cannot be objectified in the absolute sense, hence "abstract". Even atheists believe in concepts such as love, hate, justice, betrayal, and every single emotion or thought that humans have, are abstract ideas.

So my answer to your question may be, there is probably no human brain that does not function without the abstract experience.

You raise an interesting point.
The place where abstractness occurs in our brain is the Neocortex, which we share with primates and dolphins. Of course ours is bigger and more advance.
This makes me wonder about the changes in the Neocortex within the homo sapiens species?
Was the Neocortex as advance as it is now inside the fist homo sapien's brain?
or has it evolved within our species during the past millenia?

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by psamty

This is why the Buddha said that consciousness does not exist byself. It co-arises with the object of consciousness. There is no seeing-consciousness without sight (and light), there is no hearing-consciousness without ears, and so on. Similarly, without the faculty of abstractions, concepts do not exist.

This is the theory of codependent arising, or pratītyasamutpāda.

Does this presume that all homo sapiens ever since they evolved had the advanced brain parts as they do now?
If so, then did the concepts evolve as our brain evolved?
or were the concepts always here, but we had to evolve first to understand what is abstract, before we could understand the concepts?

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by mehdi84

I believe it to be no different then explaining any concept, to someone who doesn't yet understand the foundations it is based upon. The foundations must be understood and appreciated before any derivatives of it can be properly understood. Of course, sometimes we can get lucky and the idea being explained can lead way to the foundation being self-deduced. The latter could, for example, manifest through Socratic questioning (which I adore for that very reason).

If one is blocked from understanding a foundational concept, for whatever reason, then I believe it to be impossible for them to understand all derivatives of it. For that particular person, they would have to superficially accept or refuse all related material.

In short: generally, I don't believe you can.

In this scenario, one can't absorb any form of abstractness, whether advanced concepts or very foundational concepts. This individual cannot "see" concepts, because his brain part, which "sees" concepts is not functioning, or not even present, or not evolved.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Does this presume that all homo sapiens ever since they evolved had the advanced brain parts as they do now?

Not at all. It is making a statement about consciousness in general. Consciousness arises along with its object. If the object does not exist, neither does the consciousness related to it.

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

If so, then did the concepts evolve as our brain evolved?
or were the concepts always here, but we had to evolve first to understand what is abstract, before we could understand the concepts?

Here you are assuming that the idea of something abstract exists in reality (independently).

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by Enso

Sounds like a test in skillful means for you Trance. Try to relate the abstract in simple terms using metaphors....and, since they may not be adept at them either, the simpler the better.

Excellent point.
Without using anything abstract, how could we communicate concepts?
Metaphors? such as using what is tangible and observable in metaphorical ways?

[psamty]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Excellent point.
Without using anything abstract, how could we communicate concepts?
Metaphors? such as using what is tangible and observable in metaphorical ways?

A concept is an abstraction, and therefore imperfect. Because of ignorance, mental formations (or abstractions) arise. Because of these concepts, we are unable to see the world as it is. Concepts filter reality for us, and limit us.

For example, if 500 years ago you told someone they could communicate with someone half across the world instantly, they would not believe it. Yet today everyone does so today through the use of a telephone. Our beliefs about information have co-evolved with the technology and have arisen together.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by psamty

Not at all. It is making a statement about consciousness in general. Consciousness arises along with its object. If the object does not exist, neither does the consciousness related to it.

Here you are assuming that the idea of something abstract exists in reality (independently).

So, correct me if I'm wrong.
You are saying that abstract concepts did not exist until our brains were evolved to have that abstract part. Right?

[Enso]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Does this presume that all homo sapiens ever since they evolved had the advanced brain parts as they do now?
If so, then did the concepts evolve as our brain evolved?
or were the concepts always here, but we had to evolve first to understand what is abstract, before we could understand the concepts?

I think according to causation, the ability to relate abstractness in language came along with the development of the brain. However, in regards to the human mind to be able to perceive the abstract, it has always been there.

That is not to say that those who do not perceive are not as advanced however. Belief affects perception. Thus, some who disbelieves, due to that disbelief, will not comprehend the abstract. You could say the inability to comprehend will affect belief, which is true, but I feel belief plays a stronger role.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

So, correct me if I'm wrong.
You are saying that abstract concepts did not exist until our brains were evolved to have that abstract part. Right?

We cannot say which came first, but yes, abstract concepts do not exist if there is no mechanism to perceive them.

[Enso]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Excellent point.
Without using anything abstract, how could we communicate concepts?
Metaphors? such as using what is tangible and observable in metaphorical ways?

Yes. Precisely. Convey the intangible in light of the tangible. This is in part the message behind the phrase 'the finger pointing to the moon', or 'moon in a dewdrop'.

For instance, Dogen was big on describing the mind's ability to perceive the Ultimate clearly when it is still as a lake, upon which the moon is reflected without obstruction. The message being conveyed is to not think/judge....but to just 'look' with a settled mind. Awareness simply being aware of itself. Wisdom, from there, will flow naturally. Any inclination of the mind to move in regard to any thought, due to the nature of the mind to question/define/separate parts will be akin to producing ripples/waves on the lake, which while the moon will still be there....but not as purely reflected, thus the perception of it not as clear (which could be seen as akin to being caught up in emotion and not thinking clearly in the heat of the moment for instance).

[psamty]

Originally Posted by Enso

Yes. Precisely. Convey the intangible in light of the tangible. This is in part the message behind the phrase 'the finger pointing to the moon', or 'moon in a dewdrop'.

For instance, Dogen was big on describing the mind's ability to perceive the Ultimate clearly when it is still as a lake, upon which the moon is reflected without obstruction. The message being conveyed is to not think/judge....but to just 'look' with a settled mind. Awareness simply being aware of itself. Any inclination of the mind to move in regard to any thought, due to the nature of the mind to question/define/separate parts will be akin to producing ripples/waves on the lake, which while the moon will still be there....but not as purely reflected.

So being aware of awareness leads to a state of no-awareness?

[Enso]

Originally Posted by psamty

So being aware of awareness leads to a state of no-awareness?

Sounds odd due to language. Technically, in Absolute terms, there is no-awareness as you say because the subject-object relationship is transcended. With nothing to be aware of, awareness does not exist. However, in the light of the relative, the state is as such......awareness being aware of itself. Or, it is I, but I am not it. It is being aware of itself through me, which is nothing other than it, though I am just me and it is just it.

[psamty]

Right, so the aim is to go into no-awareness, which is undefinable, because if it were definable, it would be a part of dukkha? So you are divorced from who you think you are, you just are (or you are not).

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by psamty

We cannot say which came first, but yes, abstract concepts do not exist if there is no mechanism to perceive them.

Does this along the line that what we cannot perceive do not exist?

[psamty]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Does this along the line that what we cannot perceive do not exist?

I don't think it goes in that direction. It says that what we perceive is dependent on the act of perception, and vice-versa.