What is abstract thinking?

>For instance, I can imagine an animal with dog head and human body.

>Or I can imagine that yesterday, instead of be ashamed of talking to that girl, I talked to her and got married.

>By the same way, I can imagine a conversation that never happened. Or if I have three apples and eat one, I get two. And I can imagine that it will be the same if I consider pears, cakes or whatever.

That's not 'abstract thinking', that's imagination. Ie, the creation of novel experience through inference, analogy, and extension of previous experience.

Or as Heidegger would put it, 'World Formation'.

>May that be the base of mathematical, logical or discursive thinking?

The basis of thinking, *tout court*.

Language is a sign post pointing to something; it is a seed that has not yet grown. The positivist project for 'logical atoms' that you can make a 'universal' language of perfect expressiveness was doomed from the very beginning because of this. At the end of the day no matter what language has to be 'met halfway' at one point or another; the ability of the receiver is a crucial part of the equation. Capacity for world formation is the water that makes that seed bloom into meaning. The less 'water', the less meaning (and many other things besides).

Make no mistake though, *calculative* aptitude is still certainly possible without (a lot of) imaginative aptitude; that's what Chinese Rooms are after all. Another phrase for the range between being long on calculation and short on world formation is 'the autism spectrum'.

(The positivist project was basically sperg rage over the difficulties they had comprehending already existing language games)

>That's not 'abstract thinking', that's imagination

That's the point. Abstract thinking and imagination are two levels of a same process

I couldn't perfectly describe abstraction, but i can describe the neuronal processes.

The brain is organized in a hierarchy of time-scales (maybe you could include spatially as well, but i think theyre by nature interconnected). More frontal, a-sensory/multisensory, areas are higher in the hierarchy and process slower changing variable in the environment while more posterior, toward primary sensory areas, process faster changing variables over shorter timescales.

higher areas will essentially extract regularities out of fast changing variables, coarse graining the trajectories of neuronal behaviour in lower areas. This is a process that happens all across the brain and can account for many things from our sensory perception of things like edges in vision, to our use of analogies or deductive logic in reasoning.

this is very powerful, because it allows you to contextualise and make predictions of sensory input very easily. Novel sensory input can be processed easily through the framework of slow changing contexts, like with understanding analogies when we able to apply the same conceptual relations from one situation to another. And kind of like your example with the fruit arithmetic being applied to other fruit or cakes. You could this allows for your ability to imagine things and make predictions of the future.

In a way, abstraction and logic are just a consequence of statistical inference of regularities in sensory input. And when this is hierarchically structured, it can create a great depth of complexity/dimensionality and somewhat, reliability, in what and how the brain makes inferences about the world.

I imagine a coherent self concept can be seen as a product of this too; the brain kind of abstracting an animals own existence out of its external and internal sensory inputs.

Finally a proper answer. Thank you.

>tfw when inference, analogy and predictions of previous experince require abstraction.

>Abstract thinking and imagination are two levels of a same process

That was my point too.

Realised i didnt answer the whole post.

yeah, i'd say its all part of the brain being able to make predictions of the environment; more contextual or abstract representations creating predictions of the more immediate information. Imagination can be seen as part of the prediction process, and strangely you could also say memory is as well - we know now that episodic memories are not objective. They are constructive processes linked to imagination and simulation. Thats kind of is the beginning of explaining why memories can often be unreliable... they are not objective and moderated by context and expectation.

im pretty sure all mammals and birds and maybe other animals use abstraction in similar ways humans can, just far far inferior complex.

Theres actually alot of papers on this area but i found a paper which might be good for your viewpoint. This is one i thought resonates most with how prediction, imagination, abstraction, and hierarchy are related. Memory is a given in all of these and the paper even touches on memory's link with simulation i mentioned above. Bare in mind, i actually haven't read this one properly but i just searched for a paper that looked like it would be good at summarising together stuff given what other papers say and your own original post.

suns.mit.edu/articles/Bar_TICS2007.pdf

this second one is just a neat direct example of abstraction by hierarchy in terms of faces. i.e. individual faces abstracted to the concept of a face and face prototypes.

psych.upenn.edu/stslab/Mattar et al.pdf

its quite an effort to read though so this is like the theoretical background

journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000209

you wont have to read results or method sections at all.

>Statistical inference
>Doesn't explain counterfactuals
>muh abstract thinking

Maybe I'm next level, but for me abstract thinking is the only way I have to connect all the interlayered inner layers and laws of reality and actually understand what existence is.

The sad part is I can't transpose it, as writing it down piece by piece destroys the entire concept - only by looking at it as the whole fabric can one understand why things are, though even the why cannot be converted to writing because it is as ethereal and nebulous as the rest.

If I had any talent in the arts, perhaps I could share it better.

sorry was just reading that paper, its not as good a summary as i thought it would but still interesting.

Counterfactuals require prediction. its just conditional prediction, and so it still relies on statistical inference to produce those predictions. Imagination is still based on a logic that only comes with experience of the outside world, does it not?

Theres papers that use the model of the brain i described for counterfactual processing. Counterfactual processes can be used for testing predictions to reduce undertainty.

>muh counterfactuals

In spite of you dismissing psychoanalysis early on, that's one of the things psychoanalysis will look at with great attention.

Any thought, emotion or memory have a correspondence in the brain, something will spark up, chemicals will be released and so on. But the substance of thought as something we talk about to each other will require you to know a thing or two of linguistics, philosophy and psychology, which have tackled "thought" through several paths. Psychoanalysis will pay close attention to what people say, to how we use words to describe the events going on "in our head" (which is not that much "in" anyway). When you say of a human-dog, more than an image you projected in your private tv room of your brain and then described to us, it is a sign that you expect us to understand. I too can think of a human-dog, but only because I can say to you what it is. Can you think of something you cannot describe not even to yourself? Anyway, not trying to answer you anything, just make you see this issue is more complex than it looks.

Anyway, just get out of this dead end of looking at it through neurosciences, which is a totally cool thing in itself, but it won't give you any insight in that regard. Dive into humanities. This is not an appeal against science or something like that, just consider that the object through which we most clearly study the formation and development of thoughts and feelings are not the microscopic relationships of our physiology, but that object is language. It is the words you use, the image you posted, or how we manipulate a formula on a board. And from language, you'd see it is also a matter that concerns society and rule, grammar, history, about philosophy. You'll find plenty of nice things there. Check Pierce, Saussure, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Levi-Strauss, Freud, Lacan.

This thread just reminded me of this video that I love, if you like stoner approaches lol:
youtube.com/watch?v=vHNrp-bf-KI

you're answering a completely different question to the one he asked though.

Not really. If OP really go for his problem, he will eventually get to where I'm talking about.

On his question of "can an ape think abstractly?"(I think that's what OP meant). You'd first have to consider how would you even tell if not by communication (ie you see yourself in some doing of the ape and you assume he had abstract thoughts to get there).

I think I've read on a secondary source to Lacan an interesting point on the difference between humans and other animals, which was that animals cannot "shut up". Although counter-intuitive at first, the point is as follows: an animal cannot speak the way we do, that is a given. Though one could argue they have some kind of language, some communication, animals recognize each other grunts and smells, etc. So where to draw the line? The line is that we, humans, may at some point "shut up", not say a word, with the intention of causing something to another. I can make you uncomfortable with my silence on purpose. An animal may produce some signs to another, but to intentionally not respond when you could requires a social link that is particular to the human language, it requires you to know that the other expects you to speak. Thus, an animal may not speak or speak to some degree, but not shut up.

It is in the same sense that we can argue that an animal does not think, or thinks, but does it think its thought is abstract? Does it expect others to understand? The OP mentioned a human with a dog's head, but more than something he just picked up, there is a mental function that tells him this thought is worthwhile to have and that allows him to see it. Can you think of a human with a dog's wing?

A logical thought, a mathematical thought, discursive thinking, all of that requires this social link not only to be communicated, but to be thought at all, to be considered as a way to go.

thanks mate

Where are you talking about though?

theres tasks you can do on animals where you can tell if they are capable of abstract perception and they can add to that with neural recordings.

im pretty sure i saw recent studies on marmosets where they do what you just described. marmoset elders give the silent treatment to marmoset babies when they interrupt apparently. i think its known animals communicate and expect others to understand.

>" but more than something he just picked up, there is a mental function that tells him this thought is worthwhile to have and that allows him to see it. Can you think of a human with a dog's wing?"

dont understand your argument.

i also say that a logical thought doesn't have to be social, but somehow i think i've just misunderstood what you're trying to say.

>desu i dont really understand any of what you're saying.

>theres tasks you can do on animals where you can tell
Yes, of course. But the point is, you first define what "abstract perception", or "abstract thinking" or "language" is and then you test for it and know what to expect. You don't discuss it with the animals about the properties of their ""reasoning"".

Same with the marmoset's "silent treatment" example, where you look for in animals something that we have thought rationally before. You can look at it and believe you recognize it, but they (the animals), cannot explain it to you, so there is nothing to work with in this point. We presume of strategies they employ, but do they know themselves that it is a strategy?

I can intentionally shut up and cause something to you and I know it is intentional because I can talk about how I shut up to someone else. Every dialogue works in a three-way, not a two-way as we may first think. It is me, you and the social rule that bind us and that make we both think we understand each other.

Point is, you may have a thought that proves itself to be logical, just like animals often do to solve their problems. But what makes it a "logical thought" or an "abstract thought", is this social thing that merely appears secondary, when it is necessary to our thinking. Not that "you are able to communicate it", but that you think "this thought is possible to communicate". In some sense, your explanation of what you thought (the apple math, the human-dog, etc) is as important as the thought itself, as foundational of reasoning as your previous observation of the apples or of dogs. If you didn't think the creature of the dog was worth naming it, perhaps you wouldn't even consider it as something on its own and you wouldn't be able to do much with it "inside" your head.

Anyway, you don't have to buy what I'm saying. It's just an advice for you to check other sources in the humanities.

He's a charlatan: a lot of bla bla bla, a few names of philosophers mentioned -just the names-, zero evidence and a youtube video linked. Don't waste your time.

tell me, do you know anything about how they make inferences or come up with tests for abstract reasoning in animals?

you know, just because a person can explain to you how they feel, doesn't mean thats reliable or valid either in terms of neuroscience.

Like i said before, i think you're answering something else.

At this point though i think you're just an excellent bait.

> tfw expects me to take his advice when unintelligible.

Time is only wasted if you know where you want to get, if your hypothesis is the goal and all else is a waste. If you want, you can read those I recommended, which I'm sure you can find the books and essays that concern the issue on your own. If not, then just don't.

And do you know of anything on psychoanalysis? Hence my advice. It's a different thing entirely, with a different approach, but that will talk precisely about the questions in the OP.

The explanation of how a person feels is not only evidence, but the very object with which you can work with in psychoanalysis, because it's about how you relate to the feeling rather than to the feeling or thought as a substance on its own, that some perceive as an entity existing inside people.

Perhaps it is not what one says that is unintelligible.

all i said is you're trying to answer a different question maybe one concerning our phenomenology, our feelings, meaning to us. thats different from science or the question OP was asking.

You haven't even mentioned in a comprehensible way how the philosophers and psychoanalysts mentioned can have interesting contributions and i bet they can, but you haven't flown the flag for them very well.

I do know some stuff about psychoanalysis actually. Not too much, but some. I think freud and lacan's psychoanalysis however is more to do with literature than science however. Compared to say John Bowlby.

I get the feelings and causes of feelings bit. But thats got nothing to do with understanding the what, how, why of abstract thought. Its a different thing.

>Perhaps it is not what one says that is unintelligible

Clearly bait.

>tfw i cant stop talking to bait.

thats a brilliant picture btw

Not op, but thanks for the links.

Some of my biggest influences in this area are Heidegger (as mentioned earlier) and Alasdair Macintyre, but also actually Hippolyte Taine's excellent 'Origins Of Contemporary France'; in particular, I crossed a truly sublime passage where he describes 'varieties of ruling experience' (to turn a phrase).

>cont...

>When a statesman, who is not wholly unworthy of that great name, finds an abstract principle in his way, as, for instance, that of popular sovereignty, he accepts it, if he accepts it at all, according to his conception of its practical bearings. He begins, accordingly, by imagining it applied and in operation. From personal recollections and such information as he can obtain, he forms an idea of some village or town, some community of moderate size in the north, in the south, or in the centre of the country, for which he has to make laws. He then imagines its inhabitants acting according to his principle, that is to say, voting, mounting guard, levying taxes, and administering their own affairs. Familiar with ten or a dozen groups of this sort, which he regards as examples, he concludes by analogy as to others and the rest on the territory. Evidently it is a difficult and uncertain process; to be exact, or nearly so, requires rare powers of observation, and, at each step, a great deal of tact, for a nice calculation has to be made on given quantities imperfectly ascertained and imperfectly noted!

>Any political leader who does this successfully, does it through the ripest experience associated with genius. And even then he keeps his hand on the check-rein in pushing his innovation or reform; he is almost always tentative; he applies his law only in part, gradually and provisionally; he wishes to ascertain its effect; he is always ready to stay its operation, amend it, or modify it, according to the good or ill results of the experiment; the state of the human material he has to deal with is never clear to his mind, even when superior, until after many and repeated gropings. —

>Now the Jacobin pursues just the opposite course. His principle is an axiom of political geometry, which always carries its own proof along with it; for, like the axioms of common geometry, it is formed out of the combination of a few simple ideas, and its evidence imposes itself at once on all minds capable of embracing in one conception the two terms of which it is the aggregate expression. Man in general, the rights of man, social contract, liberty, equality, reason, nature, the people, tyrants, are all elementary conceptions; whether precise or not, they fill the brain of the new sectary; oftentimes these terms are merely vague, sounding words, but that makes no difference; as soon as they meet in his brain an axiom springs out of them that can be instantly and absolutely applied on every occasion and at all hazards.

>Men as they really are do not concern him. He does not observe them; he does not require to observe them; with closed eyes he imposes a pattern of his own on the human substance manipulated by him; the idea never enters his head of forming any previous conception of this complex, multiform, swaying material — contemporary peasants, artisans, townspeople, curés and nobles, behind their ploughs, in their homes, in their shops, in their parsonages, in their mansions, with their inveterate beliefs, persistent inclinations, and powerful wills. Nothing of this enters into or lodges in his mind; all its avenues are stopped by the abstract principle which flourishes there and fills it completely. Should actual experience through the eye or ear plant some unwelcome truth forcibly in his mind, it cannot subsist there; however obstreperous and telling it may be, the abstract principle drives it out; if need be it will distort and strangle it, on the ground of its being a calumny, as it gives the lie to the principle which is true in itself and indisputable. Manifestly, a mind of this stamp is not sound; of the two faculties which should pull together harmoniously, one is undeveloped and the other over-developed; facts are wanting to turn the scale against the weight of formulae. Too heavy on one side and too light on the other, the Jacobin mind turns violently over on that side to which it leans, and such is its incurable infirmity.

supreme bait.

Jacobin detected.

edgelord on all fours.

I like how intellectually incontinent brainlets reflexively shit out 'edgelord' whenever they experience the creeping sensation of cognitive dissonance.

Good old George's thought terminating cliches are alive and well today; stronger than ever even!

>insults someones intellectuality.
>is on Veeky Forums using the word brainlet.