Defining God

[Present awareness]

There are dozens, if not hundreds of different religions, whom define God differently. There is no consensus on which definition is right, just as there is no consensus on which language is best. Regardless of how God is defined, it will only be an abstract concept. However, that is not to say that it won't bring comfort to those whom believe.

[Zerubbabel]

The defining characteristic of abstract thought is reasoning about generalities that are abstracted from memories.

I like definitions. GK Chesterton says they do two things, they fight and they fight fair. Armed with the definition of "abstract" one should be able to go into the world of ideas and pick up any idea and determine if it were abstract or non-abstract. So I picked up the ideas of zero and infinity. Neither is experiential, or abstracted from memory - anybody's memory because no one has ever experienced zero nor infinity. And there is nothing "general" about either infinity nor zero because both are definitively absolute.

Consider that where an idea is abstracted from is not the memory but from reality, reality such as material things or real actions. The reality connection point of zero might be found in the Sanskrit etymon which means empty place, such as a desert. Infinity from the etymon meaning without end such as the ocean appears. I can't imagine any human being standing on the edge of the ocean for the first time and not conceiving the abstract idea of infinity. Yet my dog's only take away was the disgusting taste of ocean water- "Yuck! What's wrong with this lake." is what she said to me.

Example of an abstract idea abstracted from a real action- Subjectivism stems from "To throw under." I can envision "throwing under" without language but it takes one's inner voice to concieve, contemplate or cogitate upon subjectivism.

.

[Barry Sears]

The global concepts about God are not similar in detail but the trend is constant. The idea is a larger structure exists as discovered by ancient scientific observations. The relationship between us our environment and the cycle around the sun, were some of the basics, that formulated the concept. Science and discovery is also a reducer to abstract thought. As scientific observations become apparent abstract thoughts decrease. How far the ocean goes is now mapped. How far do you travel before you fall of the edge of the World is answered. By the sharing of knowledge and new scientific discoveries, abstract ideas reduce. Why has the kangaroo evolved at Australia?, why does the moose have massive antlers?, why has the buffalo evolved and lives at the neck of the World? Science explains. Without language we cannot share the answers, with communication knowledge is distributed.

My dog, as with all, will scoff all it can. My cat will always save a little even if she is given a little so that there is always something for later.

Can one who has never seen or hear, dream?

It sounds like a name of a child now. We called him Abstract.

[Belindi]

Zerubbabel wrote:

So I picked up the ideas of zero and infinity. Neither is experiential, or abstracted from memory - anybody's memory because no one has ever experienced zero nor infinity. And there is nothing "general" about either infinity nor zero because both are definitively absolute.

Consider that where an idea is abstracted from is not the memory but from reality, reality such as material things or real actions. The reality connection point of zero might be found in the Sanskrit etymon which means empty place, such as a desert. Infinity from the etymon meaning without end such as the ocean appears. I can't imagine any human being standing on the edge of the ocean for the first time and not conceiving the abstract idea of infinity. Yet my dog's only take away was the disgusting taste of ocean water- "Yuck! What's wrong with this lake." is what she said to me.

Example of an abstract idea abstracted from a real action- Subjectivism stems from "To throw under." I can envision "throwing under" without language but it takes one's inner voice to concieve, contemplate or cogitate upon subjectivism.

.
I agree about the concrete origins of such abstractions as infinity and zero. I can introspect and find my own images from memory which inspire my ability to juggle with words like zero and infinity. There may be people who can use concepts like infinity and zero without any concrete images in their memory backgrounds, but I guess such people would be computing machines with no search engines installed.

Zerubbabel has said to Zerubbabel Dog at lakeside "Lake!" . Zerubbabel Dog remembers horrid surprise of taste of salt water. Zerubbabel Dog associates nasty salt water suprprise with phonetic event . The phonetic "Lake!" causes Zerubbabel Dog to lower her tail and flatten her ears even when the salt lake is miles away out of sight and sound.
***
I'd conclude that Zerubbabel Dog is able to abstract her concept of 'lake'. She cannot however communicate the abstract concept to other dogs,*** although she and Zerubbabel might have a simple conversation with Z Dog about lakes during which Z could possibly say "sorry" to Z Dog for arousing the unpleasant memory.

*** Human language is phonetic in ways that dogs cannot do. Dogs might have symbolic communications systems to do with scent or phonetics that we cannot perceive.The essence of abstraction is the symbol.

[Rr6]

because no one has ever experienced zero nor infinity. And there is nothing "general" about either infinity nor zero because both are definitively absolute.

Humans experience finite ergo the opposite of finite is infinite. Simple.

If Universe/God is finite occupied space then what is beyond is infinite non-occupied space. Simple.

Infinite is deduced from our experience of finite.

We do experience zero quantity of this or that.

Fuller puts it like this. Romans could not count no-sheep so there roman numeral system had no number zero.

The oldest abacus in the world{ China } has 13 columns. I have a small modern abacus and it has 13 columns. An abacus has a positioning for zero count once that column becomes full of shells/beads and the next column is needed.

Why 13 columns? Was it to count stars in sky? Beans in a jar? Sand grains on a beach.

r6

[Zerubbabel]

Humans experience finite ergo the opposite of finite is infinite. Simple...

Yeah, simple for us. But my dog couldn't get it. The reason it is simple for the human being in your example is because that human being approached the real world already armed with the abstract idea of dualism. With this absolutely amazing abstract tool we went all around the world and everything we picked up we imagined it's opposite. That one tool really did help scientific inquiry and the development of all the wonderful man-made stuff we love. (You ever watch Seinfeld in the old days? When George began always doing the opposite?) My dog doesn't understand dualism but she does understand "NO" but not in the same sense as we understand it as the negation of something, of doing nothing rather than something, of nil or zero. My dog understands "NO" as nothing more than submission, a reassertion of the hierarchy and a command to cease extroversion, to pull back to her place in the pack (she was beta, second in command). Ahhh... the last bastion of patriarchy where I can be The Alpha Male.

.

-- Updated March 16th, 2017, 2:10 pm to add the following --

The essence of abstraction is the symbol.

But you previously said: "The defining characteristic of abstract thought is reasoning about generalities that are abstracted from memories." Is defining character different from essence? Your posts might appear as a contradiction but I think what you are doing, what your contribution is, is to list all the elements required for abstract thought. I think it is great. Lets list: Yeah memory is definitely required. Without it me and my dog would both be dysfunctional. Reasoning? Absolutely. Without reasoning our minds would be like a computer with no operating system. And I think my dog engages in reasoning, if only in your if-then idea. The etymon of reason means ratio and I think that really enhances the understanding of what reasoning is. I think this guy, Douglas Hofstadter, has it right in Analogy as the Core of Cognition. Analogy is the same as ratio in that both compare the relationship between two things or asks the seemingly simple questions: "How is this thing like that thing?" or- "What do these things have in common?" "Seemingly simple" because we take for granted our remarkable ability to move about freely in the abstract world always comparing things, and always making judgments based on that comparison. (The video is a great lecture (Stanford), and entertaining as well. If you watch begin at 13:30.) Signification is of course required. But I think signification extends to all sensory inputs not just the abstract sensory inputs humans invent like phonetics and hand signing. My dog knows that picking up the keys signifies an adventure is about to begin. The cow knows that green grass signifies tasty grass. The shark knows that the the tiniest ppm of blood in the water signifies dinner. The bull elk knows the pheromones of a cow in heat signifies fun time. There is a difference though: evolution creates these signs through very long multi-generational adaptations, and humans do it in an event, a social event of convention.

IMO you are amiss with generalities as an element as I stated with the abstract ideas of infinity and zero both being absolute ... and even the abstract of "absolute" ready to stand battle against any generality.

The other elements of abstract thought that need inclusion are syntax to connect all of our signs, and the connection point to reality. All the analogies we make are connected to reality at some point. As an etymon-freak I find it amazing that the etymon usually identifies that precise point in reality from which an abstract idea is pulled away from. Connection points like desert, ocean, table (which we throw something under to make it subjective)

I can introspect and find my own images from memory which inspire my ability to juggle with words

Yeah, what she said! Language-based abstraction attached to image-based (or sensory-based) reality is the recipe for human intelligence. And there is a balance to be had in the two things, a ratio, or a reasoning. Abstraction unattached to reality is insanity. Reality without abstraction is my dog. My dog, btw, loves the ocean, she just learned to not drink the water. I tried many times to point to the horizon, to share with her the exhilaration of infinity, but sadly she could not extract that from the image.

.

-- Updated March 16th, 2017, 2:24 pm to add the following --

Without language we cannot share the answers, with communication knowledge is distributed.

Yes, but there is more. Without language we can not conceive of new abstract ideas, abstract ideas which were not communicated yet somehow appear for the very first time. Yet language can not exist without the abstract idea of syntax. It is a paradox like chicken and egg. yet we know that there was a beginning of some kind, an originary event less than 100,000 ya when abstract thinking and language first appeared on the human scene and became an essential element of the human condition.


.

[Rr6]

l

Humans experience finite ergo the opposite of finite is infinite. Simple...

Zerubbabe--Yeah, simple for us. But my dog couldn't get it.

Well good, glad to see you agree. Dogs are irrelevant to my responding to post or your response here to me. imho

We understand the concept of infinite via our experience finite stuff{ occupied space } only. Just clarifying where I believe you were in slight error in original post. No biggie.

Understanding the concept of infinity is one thing, comprehension of infinite is another and I do not believe humans are capable of comprehension of infinite this or infinite that.

r6

[Barry Sears]

Perhaps we are not in tune to the available potential of other forms of communication. When walking towards the lake with a fiend, the dog spots the lake and becomes horrified. The friend hears the concern through the new heart rate generated by the horrified sight. Concerned the friend becomes worried and looks at dog for a reason. The friend goes in for a quick sniff from behind and deduces a repulsive salty odar and confirms with a quick taste. The two head off in another direction. The friend was a dog too, would be disturbing if it wasn't.

Quote R6

I do not believe humans are capable of comprehension of infinite this or infinite that.

When I add 1 to a number and then add one more and then I add one more, I believe this process could keep going, with out an end for infinity.

I am most interested in your boundary of occupied space R6. You mentioned it is related to gravity. Could you explain further please. There are gravitional forces between planets and between Galaxies. Does it stop if Galaxies stop and a nothingness exists outside this?

Zerubbabel quotes

Without language we can not conceive of new abstract ideas

Would you say that a person born blind and deaf could not have abstract images, or dreams.

[Rr6]

Barry Sears---Perhaps we are not in tune to the available potential of other forms of communication. ...The friend was a dog too, would be disturbing if it wasn't.

Irrelevant to anything we've been discussing. Out of left field with no apparrent reason or context. Ergo irrelevant

Quote R6

I do not believe humans are capable of comprehension of infinite this or infinite that.

When I add 1 to a number and then add one more and then I add one more, I believe this process could keep going, with out an end for infinity.

First off that process ended after you did it three times. Again, understanding concept of infinite is not same as comprehension of infinite.

I am most interested in your boundary of occupied space R6.

Well then you should start by addressing my comments as stated specifically. This is only the umpteenth time I've suggested follow that process.. To no avail with you.

You mentioned it is related to gravity. Could you explain further please. There are gravitational forces between planets and between Galaxies. Does it stop if Galaxies stop and a nothingness exists outside this?

First you have to be able to understand concept of a a finite, then a finite, occupied space Universe, then the outer surface being gravity. It is simple concept yet you shown little to any understanding much less comprehension of such a simple concept. You appear to mo to keep beating around the bushes with other irrelevant comments.

Ive even posted an animation of an undulating surface that approximates what I believe gravitational surface of Universe is likened too. An undulating spherical-like surface that is lumpy.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCHILD/SCHILD.html

r6

[Belindi]

Zerubbabel wrote:

But you previously said: "The defining characteristic of abstract thought is reasoning about generalities that are abstracted from memories." Is defining character different from essence? Your posts might appear as a contradiction but I think what you are doing, what your contribution is, is to list all the elements required for abstract thought. I think it is great. Lets list: Yeah memory is definitely required. Without it me and my dog would both be dysfunctional. Reasoning? Absolutely.

Zerubbabel Dog I assume remembers the saltiness because it was so startlingly unpleasant. If you never refer to it in her presence she will probably not deliberately taste that lake again. The symbol, the phonetic LAKE! , might also take root in her memory so that both the lame itself and the symbol for salt water are associated together. So I suggest that the memory does not necessarily include a symbol but it may do so.

Zerubbabel Dog may have a specialised canine symbolic system but she will probably be unable to do much abstract reasoning in our symbolic system.Chimps can be trained in our symbolic system to quite a sophisticated level. I wish for Dr Doolittle's skill!

-- Updated March 17th, 2017, 8:21 am to add the following --

correction: lake

-- Updated March 17th, 2017, 8:28 am to add the following --

EG "sophisticated" . I mean, Dog is unlikely to generalise 'LAKE!' to refer to anything nasty unless she is trained and or can read your facial expressions which she probably can. I think we are the same and don't generalise the import of a symbolic sound unless the generalisation is socially required. Religious symbols are socially required for instance. A Muslim attaches special symbolism to Mecca which for me an infidel is a place on the map with holy associations for some and not for me.

-- Updated March 17th, 2017, 8:30 am to add the following --

I mean. Dog could be trained to the usage of phonetic 'SALTY'' instead of 'NO!!'. Some dog may well think that the sound of Sausages !or Biscuit! is its name.

-- Updated March 17th, 2017, 8:38 am to add the following --

So to sum up, symbols are useful for communication and thought only insofar as the species in question can use that symbolic system including human speech sounds. Our use of language depends very much upon the symbol including the use of metaphor as a means of progressing reasoning through time.

The symbol GOD has emotive connotations which adds some difficulty to defining that particular word sound. The variety of symbolic associations that different persons remember about GOD makes it impossible to define except arbitrarily by for instance some religious authority.

It is empirically true that authorities that define GOD tend towards oppressive regimes.

[Zerubbabel]

Our use of language depends very much upon the symbol including the use of metaphor as a means of progressing reasoning through time.

Absolutely! "Use of metaphor" is intricately interconnected with Douglas Hofstadter's Analogy as the Core of Cognition. He makes very clear the relationship between language and cognition yet he never ventures into the swamp of defining "Abstract" as a type of cognition. (The lecture really is worth watching.)

I think metaphor/analogy is another face of reasoning, i.e. ratio(ing) or the relationship between things with the inclusion of representative signs. But because of the different connotations people have of metaphor as poetry and reason as unemotional logic, it probably should be separated out. It should be included in the list of things required for abstract thought.

The (proposed) things that must all come together to create the perfect storm of abstract thought - are:
<> Memory
<> Reasoning
<> Signification
<> Syntax
<> Analogy/metaphor
<> A connection point to reality (which is one of the above analogous components)

.

[Belindi]

Zerubbabel wrote:

I think metaphor/analogy is another face of reasoning, i.e. ratio(ing) or the relationship between things with the inclusion of representative signs. But because of the different connotations people have of metaphor as poetry and reason as unemotional logic, it probably should be separated out. It should be included in the list of things required for abstract thought.

The (proposed) things that must all come together to create the perfect storm of abstract thought - are:
<> Memory
<> Reasoning
<> Signification
<> Syntax
<> Analogy/metaphor
<> A connection point to reality (which is one of the above analogous components)

Nice list.

However, what is the difference between "signification" and "analogy/metaphor" ? I myself differentiate signs and symbols and I wonder of this difference is what you refer to.

When you say "because of the different connotations people have of metaphor as poetry and reason as unemotional logic, it probably should be separated out" do you mean that you advocate explaining how all living languages are metaphorical structures which are closely linked to social, i.e. intersubjective, reality? I think you would also have to explain how specialist jargons and use of dead languages such as Latin and Greek are used by scientists and philosophers to circumvent the subjectivity problem, especially the emotional connotations of images in natural living languages.

I wonder if you agree with me that , apart from specialist abstractions like philosophy, science, and assembling flat pack furniture, emotional connotations and reason are mutually compatible, and in fact good fiction including surrealism is work of reason and cannot be work of reason unless emotional connotations are included. Therefore it is stupid to read the Bible literally and it's stupid to regard religious ritual as unreasonable.

Would you agree with me that , apart from changeless abstractions such as mathematics and formal logic, good literary style and good scientific or philosophical writing have more in common than what separates them? I'm thinking of balance, structure, concision.

It's true that much literature uses archaic terms and structures e.g. the King James Bible. Bearing in mind that The Bible is our main source about God and the history of God I think that there ought to be attention paid to editing The Bible so that well- conceived bits of The Bible are retained and the dross is edited out. This would be the work of linguists and literary critics and prize winning authors, not religious magisteria.

[Zerubbabel]

Belindi I confess to being obtuse, I don't comprehend your last post. It seems too abstract when I thought the goal was to define or analyses what abstract thought is. I think Hofsteader's understanding of "chunked ideas" explain my incomprehension of your use of multiple chunked ideas or abstractions upon abstractions.

To go back to the thread OP- the title is a veiled call for the popular argument of god's existence. Indeed popular because it generated 60 pages, which I haven't read, yet would still bet dollars to donuts that a majority of the posts are on that well-worn debate. But the text of the OP calls for a judgement against "abstract thought." And despite the interrogative tone the OP makes a judgement against abstract thought while conflating abstract thought with "god." The OP implies that if one jettisons "god" then they will rid themselves of much of that icky abstract thought.

Disciplined thought requires that before a judgement is made against something, in this case abstract thought, one should understand what is being judged. How can one reject abstract thought without even defining what it is? I know that abstract thought inextricably pervades all of our thoughts, therefore the idea that we can rid ourselves of abstract thinking when we rid ourselves of god is absurd.

~

-- Updated March 19th, 2017, 1:19 pm to add the following --

~ Defining God ~ Feuerbach has it right that god is a repository for all of our highest ideals or principles - otherwise known as abstract social constructs, i.e. morals. God also serves as a symbolic figurehead which when combined with ritual creates an aura of sacredness, or special-ness for the symbolic god, but more importantly, wayyyy more importantly, for the abstract ideals he embodies.

When we jettison god all of those abstract ideals, all of those abstract social constructs, all of those morals remain. The only thing we lose is the nice neat organization and management of them when the Church was the moral authority. When we lose god we don't lose sacredness, it just finds new niches. Compare for instance the image of the blaspheming heretic excommunicated by the Church, against the image of the celebrity who lets the "N" word slip and is ostracized by popular culture.

.

[Belindi]

Belindi I confess to being obtuse, I don't comprehend your last post. It seems too abstract when I thought the goal was to define or analyses what abstract thought is. I think Hofsteader's understanding of "chunked ideas" explain my incomprehension of your use of multiple chunked ideas or abstractions upon abstractions.

To go back to the thread OP- the title is a veiled call for the popular argument of god's existence. Indeed popular because it generated 60 pages, which I haven't read, yet would still bet dollars to donuts that a majority of the posts are on that well-worn debate. But the text of the OP calls for a judgement against "abstract thought." And despite the interrogative tone the OP makes a judgement against abstract thought while conflating abstract thought with "god." The OP implies that if one jettisons "god" then they will rid themselves of much of that icky abstract thought.

Disciplined thought requires that before a judgement is made against something, in this case abstract thought, one should understand what is being judged. How can one reject abstract thought without even defining what it is? I know that abstract thought inextricably pervades all of our thoughts, therefore the idea that we can rid ourselves of abstract thinking when we rid ourselves of god is absurd.

Sorry Zerubbabel, it would be better to forget my last post which is a mess.




-- Updated March 19th, 2017, 1:19 pm to add the following --

~ Defining God ~ Feuerbach has it right that god is a repository for all of our highest ideals or principles - otherwise known as abstract social constructs, i.e. morals. God also serves as a symbolic figurehead which when combined with ritual creates an aura of sacredness, or special-ness for the symbolic god, but more importantly, wayyyy more importantly, for the abstract ideals he embodies.

When we jettison god all of those abstract ideals, all of those abstract social constructs, all of those morals remain. The only thing we lose is the nice neat organization and management of them when the Church was the moral authority. When we lose god we don't lose sacredness, it just finds new niches. Compare for instance the image of the blaspheming heretic excommunicated by the Church, against the image of the celebrity who lets the "N" word slip and is ostracized by popular culture.

.

Sorry, Zerubbabel .Better to forget my last post which is a mess.

If I may sum up. I believe that each person has their own subjective idea of what 'God' means . Those subjective views are I believe abstracted from concrete entities or events, sort of like the image 'unicorn' is abstracted from a picture of a horse or pony or a real horse or pony with a horn on its head. There is often a picture of a unicorn somewhere in the individual's memory. Similarly one has seen a picture of God in a stained glass window or something.One might have been told that God is loving, and one remembers a loving kind person or event. Some concept of God are nasty ones and the believer if she is lucky will be able to get on with normal life without that nasty concept. Or the Feuerbach concept ; or a revered dead relative concept. And so on.

I also believe that whatever a person believes defines God, the concept so defined should be a helpful one, and preferably not an immoral or illegal one.
e
Alternatively the religious person will often have been told by some religious authority what to believe about God . A few of those God concepts as defined by authorities are immoral and illegal e.g. the ISIS version of God. I cannot imagine how humans can rid ourselves of abstract thoughts i.e. generalisations and universals. The reification and personification of God tends to become the preserve of dictators and tyrants and their poor serfs.

[Zerubbabel]

...abstract thoughts i.e. (=) generalisations and universals.

I chewed on this for a while. I took "generalisations and universals." into the world of ideas and judged many ideas by this definition. Science taken as a whole is, I think, not generalized, it is very specific and denigrates anything generalized as "unscientific." Generalities are only allowed in the guise of statistics. Science is universal. Even though Newtonian physics were overturned by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics it always passionately and faithfully seeks the universal, what they call the Unifying Theory. By your definition Science is not abstract despite the nagging minor exceptions. I think that's exactly the image that the author of the OP had in mind - to juxtapose undisciplined and murky abstract religious thought alongside of the crisp, clear thinking of science and reason and she appropriated the idea of "abstract thought" to do it. "Abstract thought" seems to always remain undefined so it is a convenient amorphous tool in an argument. The end goal of the OP is to craft yet again another polemical argument against religion, to bait religious people and generate 59 pages of argument. I think you might favor this argument because you seem drawn to always end your posts with an anti-religious judgement.

Then I juxtaposed "generalisations and universals." alongside Language taken as a whole. Language is very specific and the rules of it's use, it's syntax must be followed. You might say "Is it?" and I'd reply "It is!" and if either of us had gotten the order of the two little words wrong, our exchange of language would have failed and we both would just quit. Language is also NOT universal. Language, just like abstract thinking, had a beginning. There was a time when language was not, and without the active maintenance of language by society it would die as with the feral child deprived of mimetic models. So by your definition Language is NOT abstract. By your definition science and language are not abstract but religion definitely is!

Definitions of abstraction are so abstract and generalized that in the end they are meaningless and "abstract thought" becomes whatever a speaker wants it to be. Yet, I discovered that every individual has the definition inside them. Try it yourself: In the still of the night cogitate upon something you know is abstract (e.g. theology) without your inner voice. You can't do it. Then try to cogitate upon something real. With effort you can do it. Simple logic (I like simple logic) then says that abstract thought is that thought you can not have without language. This means that our minds dwell most of the time in the abstract world with the real world acting as sensory input and a touchstone to judge our abstractions and prevent them from spiraling out into insanity, i.e. abstractions built upon abstractions with no attachment to reality.


Science is very abstract. I wonder if the OP considered that, that if we could, if it were actually possible, to cease thinking abstractly that we would actually throw away science with religion - the proverbial baby with the bathwater.


.