Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, of course not. I am sure you could find self referential descriptions, but the killer would be the word 'vague'. The concept is clearly more concrete than the thing it refers to.
Q. If language is symbolic/represetnative by its nature, does it stand that the concept to which the word/language refers to be more concrete and/or real?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMaybe I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about what the concept refers to rather than the conceptualization itself.
So you're saying the language is more concrete than the concept?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSurely concepts are based on thought; and thought is a physical process,
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about what the concept refers to rather than the conceptualization itself.
Neither symbols nor concepts are physical objects, I don't think you can measure their 'reality'. So neither is more real than the other. Similarly I am not sure what you would mean by 'concrete' in this context. I think the word ' ...[text shortened]... hand are almost by their very nature a bit grey around the edges and thus not entirely concrete.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Let's take math, as an example.
Surely concepts are based on thought; and thought is a physical process,
a physical process is real and therefore a concept is founded in reality.
The problem is: is my concept of "xxx" the same as your concept
of "xxx"? I think the answer to that is obviously NO. (The size of
that NO being dependant on the concept.)
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe concept is real. It may, however be different than the formula, and different for different people.
Is the concept of the expressed formula real?