User talk:Ray Cherry/Conceptionary

Discussion page for the definition of 'conceptionary'

Open for debate here:

What would you consider the most basic concepts in human understanding?
Patterns? (lines and shapes, colors)

Sounds? (simple and harmonic, voice and music)

Primitive Self-Preservation? (thirst, hunger, warmth, family)

Personal Awareness? (parts of body, awake and sleeping, dreams and fears)

Environment? (rooms, houses, inside and outside, furniture and clothes)

Discuss ...


 * Numbers I guess are the most basic concepts in human understanding. Numbers express different scales and quantities, which are I guess the most basic in our understanding. By the way, as for the most basic concepts, there are attemps to create the world's minimal language. As I understand, the idea is to construct a language, which would still be enough to express any thought. Of course, it's not a very correct way to do it, as we know that sets of different quantities are enought to express virtually everything (digital broadcasting, etc. communicated in binary code). I think we should attempt to create not the world's minimal language, but the world's "optimal" language for daily communication and learning... --Inyuki 22:21, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your latest contribution. I would imagine that your mathematics background has influenced this answer, which is of course appropriate for details of storing and arranging the concepts with computer systems. However, it is the method of interaction from the User to the Conceptionary that I was hoping to discuss. Not that I want to ignore the internal structures of the data - this is essential to the performance of the 'product(s)' should anything ever by produced for the purposes being described - but the usefulness/success of this project hinges on the navigation system of the user interface dealing with the links between concepts. How can a single 'reference book' be constructed for use by the greatest diversity of 'readers' (or 'viewers'); people of all ages, cultures and academic capacities should be able to use the conceptionary, and the user interface should be configurable to each user's preferences (see Path Maps and the filtering thereof below). As for new languages, I hold the opinion that old languages should be kept alive as much as possible, as much knowledge remains in their written and verbal heritage that is not yet documented by modern methods - let alone common knowledge. Consider, for example, the links between Welsh (of Wales, Britain) history/mythology and the dragon; Chinese mythology and their dragon; the Dark Ages of northern Europe; trees buried in Irish bogs showing a decade-long winter; and, finally, the chronology and frequency of meteor/comet/n.e.o impacts on Earth and other solar system bodies (including Shoemaker-Levy in Jupiter, 1994, and "2002 NT7" in 2019). If you follow the 'dragon's trail' you may find Madoc takes you from Europe to America leaving behind the troubles described by Gildas, and good reasons to start, (or restart), a society on Mars. Also, if you enjoy looking for the histroy behind the mythology, J.R.R. Tolkien's lifetime work on European mythology holds many seeds for discussion and research; many references to a land of plenty lost in the west of the world, [Europe <=> migrations <=> America], and to a land hosting a very ancient and advanced culture that disappears under a tidal wave never to be seen again, [Atlantis <=> meteor impacts <=> acts of God(s) <=> rogue waves].  In summary, minimising the information should not, in my humble opinion, reduce the information; it should condense the information without losses in detail, (and the inherent links to other information via those details). It is the sorting, filtering and analysis of information, not the minimisation, that should be focussed upon. -- Ray Cherry 14:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting idea I've been thinking about recently. I have been considering creating a conceptionary. I would recommend reading Ayn Rand's book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and the relevant chapter on concepts from Leonard Peikoff's book: Objectivism, Philosophy of Ayn Rand for starters. Ms Rand gave the most original theory of what concepts are and how we form them in the process of human cognition.  Now to consider the most basic concepts I would say that they have to be sensory-perceptual. Because the senses are the foundation of knowledge -- the standard of determining what is real. Sensory concepts are the most basic of all.  But we don't have access to the raw sensory data because our brain automatically processes our sensory data and provides our conscious mind with percepts. Unless we blur our vision or distort our hearing we don't see unidentified patches of colour.  So instead of seeing  a 'square blob of colour', we actually see 'a red square' that is the mind presents sensory data as integrated units already. -- zardoz at infoserve dot net 2009-02-05


 * So for some concretes, basic concepts consist of: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. Then we form concepts of discrete entities which we can detect using our senses: red, blue, square, sharp, soft, sweet, bitter, salty, acrid, pungent, foul, pine (smell) unfortunately the touch, taste and smell concepts are difficult to convey online with present technology. The closest you could get would be to display a tongue licking a lemon, grapefruit, lime and then a candy to identify the concept of sour vs sweet -- zardoz at infoserve dot net 2009-02-05


 * My idea of a conceptionary is to use Rand's theory of concept formation to present a concept with the minimal data required to correctly form that concept, the definition of the concept, including the genus and differentia, followed by more example referents and notable exceptions. Finally, a more scientific definition can also be provided. So for example the concept blue would be indicated by the word Blue, then two patches of different shades of blue and a patch of red (the minimum data needed to form the concept blue) This concept is so basic it has no definition apart from pointing at blue objects. (ostensive definition) Genus is colour. Followed by the full spectrum of blue shades. The scientific definition would be visible light with a wavelength ranging from XXXnm to YYYnm but dependent somewhat on the particular physiology of any specific person's eyes (colour-blindness). -- zardoz at infoserve dot net 2009-02-05

Links between Concepts
Are the links discussed in the Conceptionary document, Concepts in themselves?

Should links exist as a separate entity in the database? Or should the Concepts themselves act as links (direct and indirect)? No deep thinking in database design is required here, (at this point), but an understanding of the link between two or more concepts requiring some form of description.

The description of a link is metadata for the database structure, but also a definition of a 'link', which would require an entry in the Conceptionary to explain the meaning of such a link. Hence a 'link' would be 'linked' to a concept, in order to explain the significance of the 'link'. Links would then exist between links and concepts, and even develop hierarchies of 'links' - very complex and undesirable.

To illustrate:

Concept of 'Red' <=> Link (and associated Concept) <=> Concept of 'Color'

The Concept associated to the Link could be 'Visual Perception', and further 'linked' to other Concepts.

Alternatively, remove the 'link' as an entity with any meaning, (no metadata, and no associated Concept), and simply refer each entity to others with which it has a meaningful association.

Hence, all the following are possible:

Concept of 'Color' <=> Concept of 'Visual Perception' Concept of 'Red'  <=> Concept of 'Color' Concept of 'Red'  <=> Concept of 'Visual Perception' <=> Concept of 'Color'

The above example illustrates the possibilities of 'Paths' between Concepts, as there exist two 'Paths' between 'Red' and 'Color', one of which is direct (possibly a 'Strong Path') and one that is indirect - involving intermediate Concepts between 'Red and 'Color' (possibly a 'Weak Path').

Discuss ...


 * From what I said above about concept formation, the natural relationship between concepts would be through their genus. So red and blue, which both have a genus of colour would automatically be linked. In addition, concepts have an 'order number' which indicates the level of abstraction they require. So first level concepts are identified through direct sensory perception. Level two concepts are identified by abstracting from level one concepts. For example, after you have identified chairs, tables, sofas, etc you can form the concept of furniture. Furniture is a second order concept because it is a purely abstract concept based directly on first order concepts. With concepts related by order number you can trace back any very abstract concept to the actual sensory-perceptual level for every intermediate concept thus anchoring your concepts directly to reality.  zardoz at infoserve dot net 2009-05-02

Path Maps between related Concepts
It is possible to conceive of a map of Paths between any two Concepts.

The most detailed of these Path Maps would attempt to present all possible Paths between the Concepts being considered. The Strong Paths may be indicated in a diffent style to Weak Paths - and Strong or Weak may not relate to the Length of the Path, but to the most common understanding of the relation between the two Concepts.

Reiteration: The Strongest Path may not necessarily be the shortest Path. The Weakest Path may in fact be the very shortest (direct) Path.

As an exercise, try to think of two Concepts that have no relationship.

The Path Maps may also be simplified by eliminating the Weak Paths, leaving only the more 'obvious' links (Strong Paths) between the two (or more) Concepts in consideration.

However, Specialist Conceptionaries may have a different interpretation of which Paths are Weak or Strong. Consider the different views of Scientists and Farmers, of Politicians and Priests: their Conceptionaries are specific not only in their Concepts, but in the links between them.

Hence, each Specialist Conceptionary may have its own set of Path Maps.

In fact, it is possible to think of some Specialist Conceptionaries not having any unique Concepts at all, but presenting special Path Maps between common/existing Concepts.

Discuss ...


 * It sounds here like you are confusing concepts with words. Concepts are exact, once formed properly. The fact that we use the same word to represent different concepts makes language difficult because we always have to maintain context.  But a conceptionary should make every concept clear and unique even if the word (in some language) is used for another concept.  Ideally, there would be some parenthetical text on the word to disambiguate the concept when necessary. orange(fruit) versus orange(colour) is already disambuguated because the genus of each differs. X(a letter of the alphabet) X(the unknown variable) X(multiplication) X(a symbol of negation) each X is a separate concept but they all use the same 'word' We always have to look at the context to determine which concept the letter X refers to when we see it somewhere. zardoz at infoserve dot net 2009-02-05

Hi, from Inyuki again, on Conceptionary
Hi, Ray. I have just browsed using http://www.wiki.com search engine and happened to see you again.

I think concepts are not equal to words, that is why they have to be catalogued more precisely. Still, we seem to not have a Conceptionary, such as we have Wiktionary.

I did not want to steal your idea or anything (I have another idea that I am mostly working on. It is now on http://howto.wikia.com), however I happened to initiate a project http://concept.wikia.com as well. My reason towards creating it was purely to create a place to add the concepts that I use in a slightly different meaning than they are described on the common dictionaries. This is especially important when you are explaining something to other people, and you are using your own words. Not always does our own words that we use have the same meaning in the person's that we are speaking to, head. So, I thought it could be handy thing to put the explanations of some of such words in a wiki, hence http://concept.wikia.com ...

It has very few pages right now, but from what you can find there, it is possible to understand the idea.

If you have some news on Conceptionary idea, I am glad to know.

Inyuki 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)