Talk:Abstraction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

See Category talk:Abstraction.

Brianjd 08:14, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Suggestion to Remedy Odd Aspect of Introduction

The statement that "Abstraction is the rendering of the general case from which an instance occurs." is a little odd. It suggests that abstraction is ontologically prior to instantiation, that all instantiation is somehow derived from abstraction. How exactly could this ever possibly be the case? It's like saying that the abstract characteristics of what a dog is creates the dog. It suggests that the abstraction is somehow more real. It's an oddly platonic way of thinking about the world. I suggest rephrasing to "Abstraction is the rendering of the general case from an instance." This would basically reconsider abstraction as a characterisation of thought rather than hierarchical theory of reality. I'm not gonna change this myself because this isn't my area so I won't be reading your replies and I wouldn't know where to begin looking for textual support to justify the change myself. Seferin (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose using some of Suzanne K. Langer's formulation to rewrite the lead sentence. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some problems

Problems begin to arise, however, when we try to define specific rules by which we can determine which things are very abstract, and which concrete.

I see no problems that are brought out to reify this point. I see only eamples that show abstraction is a continuum. Perhaps the article should say that instead.

We might look at other graphs, in a progression from cat to mammal to animal, and see that animal is more abstract than mammal; but on the other hand mammal is a harder idea to express, certainly in relation to marsupial.

This seems wrong-headed. We should expect increasingly abstract things to be increasingly easy to understand (except perhaps at the fringes, like with "being" or "totality"). The more concrete an object is, the more difficult it is to grasp a concept that clearly delineates that object. Hardness of expression hardly seems to be a relevant criteria for abstraction.

Finally, I'd like a reference and some detail for the neurology bit. KSchutte 04:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

In the intro:

An abstraction is an idea, concept, or word which defines the phenomena that make up its referents (those concrete events or things to which the abstraction refers).

Shouldn't it be "an idea, concept, or word which represents the phenomena"? How can an idea, concept or word define a phenomenon?

Montalvo 16:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to change this definition to

An abstraction is an idea, concept, or word which describes the phenomena that make up its referents (those concrete events or things to which the abstraction refers).

because the word defines in this definition is wrong. I could also settle for represents in here. But defines is too strong because abstractions necessarily leave some things out. They are not a total characterization of a phenomenon.

Montalvo 19:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your change would definitely be an improvement, Montalvo, but the given definition still seemed broken. That is, the referrents mentioned should not be the abstraction's referrents but rather the referrents of the words for the concrete objects to which the abstraction applies. If they were really the referrents of the abstraction, we'd have a circular definition (because every word necessarily describes its own referents). So, I rewrote it and added a simple example, as follows:

An abstraction is an idea, conceptualization, or word for the collection of qualities that identify the referent of a word used to describe concrete objects or phenomena. For example, the abstraction applehood is the collection of qualities that identify the referrent of the word "apple" in the phrase "the apple on the table".

How does that sound? The Rod 06:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plato

I think plato was the first one to realize the importance of abstration and how our minds are built upon it. He talked about it in different terms, and he maybe thought that the abstractions where the only things that really existed. But I think he is the father of the whole concept and therfore I think it would be appropriate to somehow mention this.--Mandelum 13:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Science

Abstraction is an incredibly important concept in computer science, especially as it relates to object-oriented programming; a section has been added (following the paradigm "Abstraction in the {name of field}".--BishopOcelot 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abstration in Art

What is the point of the "Robert Stark" quote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.53.92 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Defining Abstration

I have a problem with the article in that it creates the impression that there is a divide between an idea or a concept once it is abstracted and I stand by the point that abstracting something is not necessary a process of generalization or simplification and further divorcing it from the specific or the concrete. My problem with many definitions that many use to define abstraction is firstly that they define it as a process wherein ideas are distanced from objects and through either generalization or simplification reducing information for a particular purpose or thinking strategy. I have a problem with this firstly in how those ideas are communicated and represented. This is a particular problem when we move from the specific to many. I don’t believe abstract thinking is simply divorcing a idea from the object but rather more a process of emphasizing a common characteristic of the object. The emphasis here is lifting out or highlighting what is common rather than what is unique, extracting the underlying essence and also that it should be communicated as such. Obviously if one is isolating what is unique it is still may be abstracted but should be communicated as such. Abstraction should not be seen as necessary merely simplifying a concept to a simple an ambiguous, vague, or undefined concept. I abstract many trends in working out my costing and subject them to many formulas to workout cost effective solutions but I cannot lose sight of the specific clients I want to apply it to at the end of the day. One specific client may be just another variable in my formula but still remains a very important client. philco@mweb.co.za


[edit] RE: Defining Abstraction

I share many of your concerns with how abstraction is defined. It seems that 'abstraction' must mean something different that 'extraction'. It seems many of the definitions confuse such that it appears that 'abstraction' is just extracting some information from some thing for a good reason. It must be more. Abstraction, perhaps, should be defined in term of a positive definition. Many times extraction is defined as 'hiding' or 'ignoring' information. I think that might be confusing. The essense of abstraction is the discovery of a property in more than one concrete thing (however we define as our concrete things). So I agree with philco. I'm not sure however if unique features can be abstracted, by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.170.248 (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on philosophical terminology.

Lestrade, The reason I propose reverting your edit is that this section on Thought Process is philosophical and ontological and not psychological. As as example, I quote from an interview with Bjarne Stroustrup:

"Raising the Level of Abstraction ...

Bjarne Stroustrup: A high level of abstraction is good, not just in C++, but in general. We want to deal with problems at the level we are thinking about those problems. ... Abstraction is a mechanism by which we understand things. ... I believe raising the level of abstraction is fundamental in all practical intellectual endeavors. I don't consider that a controversial statement, but people sometimes consider it controversial because they think code at a higher level abstraction is necessarily less efficient. ... The only code faster than the fastest code is no code. By abstracting to matrix manipulation operations, you give the compiler enough type information to enable it to eliminate many operations. ... "

If you wish to add material on perception, please add it to a new section. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Abstraction can be practical: for example in the SD card, "These card readers present a standard USB mass storage interface to memory cards, thus separating the operating system from the details of the underlying SD interface." --Ancheta Wis (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
From the New York Times, December 30, 2007: 'David Heath, co-author of "Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die." The "curse of knowledge," is the paradox that as our knowledge and expertise increase, our creativity and ability to innovate tend to taper off because the walls of the box we think inside of thicken along with our experience.'
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Lestrade, Here are some citations on 'conceptual distance', courtesy of Google
I believe these suffice to show that the concept of 'conceptual distance' has existed for decades, if not longer. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lestrade, while sorting through my books, I found a reference which may be useful to this article: Mortimer J. Adler (1985), Ten Philosophical Mistakes: Basic errors in modern thought - How they came about, their consequences, and how to avoid them ISBN 0-02-500330-5

Now Adler admits in his book that he also falls into the errors which he categorizes, but I believe that his first point may resonate with a definition which based in perception, as you attempt. However, this is more suited to the talk page, rather than directly on the article. I propose that we work together somehow. Here is an abstract of the first mistake. I place the abstract (or precis) in 'single quotes' to denote the ideas which I read from Adler. However, I believe it is inappropriate to wholesale lift the abstract for use in the article, because after all, these are Adler's ideas:

  • Mistake #1: 'failure to differentiate between two realms of thought, the perceptual and conceptual p. xvi - "our ideas have the special characteristic and function of placing objects before our minds. It is always the idea's object of which we are directly conscious, not the idea itself. Ideas themselves are nothing but the means whereby we apprehend the objects they have the power to place before our minds. They themselves are inapprehensible." Thus after correcting this mistake, Adler finds there are 3 realms to differentiate 1) physical reality 2) all objects of thought 3) our individual, incommunicable subjective experience.' -- chapter #1: concerning consciousness and its objects, by Mortimer Adler.

The whole point which I attempt to convey is the idea of differentiation, which you term subtraction in your note below. There is not much difference between this and distancing, in my view, only that distance implies a continuum or spectrum, where 'subtraction' has more of a discrete feel. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Before we get hung up on realm 3) 'our individual, incommunicable subjective experience' note that this is the exact same idea as F. A. von Hayek's subjective theory of value.
As I am sure you know, John Locke did work in this field, and Adler (and also Grady Booch) discuss the objects of knowledge, which I denote by realm 2).
Adler was an unabashed Aristotelian, which ought to give you some idea of his position on realm 1).

Here is another reference: John Wilson (1963), Thinking with concepts SBN 521 0961 4. Note that the reference pre-dates the ISBN format. Wilson was formed by the UK system where Adler's viewpoint was formed in the US. Wilson promises to expose techniques suitable for sixth form (I'm not sure what level that means). --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed attempt at clarification

I tried to replace this sentence ("abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas are distanced from objects") but I was reverted. What does the verb "distanced" mean here? Does it mean that ideas are placed at a location that is remote from objects? That is an absurdity. What is the definition of "ideas" here? That word is very ambiguous and is used to designate many different concepts. What is the definition of "objects"? Do we know objects directly as they really are? Are they things that are as they are regardless of an observer's viewpoint? I consider the sentence "abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas are distanced from objects" to be very unclear, obscure, and carelessly written. Since Wikipedia is not affiliated with academia, such a sentence seems out of place.Lestrade (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Please read the offending sentence in the context of the rest of that section. Objects and ideas are the stock in trade of people like Grady Booch; I recommend the first edition of his book Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications. There are such people as computer software ontologists who actually work with this. This is not academic. There are actually robotic cars that drive themselves, etc., whose computer programs have to deal with various levels of abstraction. But the subject has existed for 50 years, now, with the computer programs of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, and Cliff Shaw, for example. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is evident that the word abstraction is ambiguous. As such, it designates more than one concept. The article should specify the various concepts that are signified by the word abstraction. We have logical abstraction, philosophical abstraction, artistic abstraction, mathematical abstraction, abstraction in computer science, psychological abstraction, and who–knows–how–many–more abstractions. User:Ancheta Wis may want computer scientific Abstraction (computer science) to dominate the article, as though that discipline had rightfully appropriated the word. Computer Science has appropriated many other words, such as Ontology and Object (computer science), thereby increasing ambiguity and confusion. If we want the Wikipedia article to add to the confusion and misunderstanding in the world, then we can continue to emulate Computer Science and take possession of words that already have their conventional meanings and use them to signify any concepts that we please.

The main definition of abstraction is the process of subtracting (withdrawing) predicates from perceived objects until we arrive at a predicate that is common and shared by all of the perceived objects. This common predicate is the essential attribute and it constitutes the concept of all of the objects in general. It is called the abstract concept. The sentence "abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas are distanced from objects" is not the main definition of abstraction. Its undefined use of ambiguous words such as ideas and objects makes it a sentence that is obscure and non–communicative. Some people, such as academics and exhibitionists, enjoy being obscure and non–communicative. It is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article, however.Lestrade (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade