Previously, I referred to a system of symbols which emerge in the human brain, its purpose being organising information on the consciousness level. So, the question is: If this system and its components are produced from the humans' experiences, then how is it possible that people have thoughts with no correspondence in reality, at least the way they feel it?
I think the answer is rather simple. The human mind, in its efforts to categorise all these classes of objects it has registered, creates hierarchies of abstraction, with more and more abstract classes. By filling in some parameters in these symbols more concrete classes can be produced and by continuing this process the level in which symbols fully correspondent with experience exist can be reached.
Similarly, the products of filling in the parameters in different ways are symbols that in no way correspond with the real world. At this point, an example may come of use: Let's imagine a human. In our minds, we have an idea about his characteristics, the colour of the skin, of the eyes, of the hair, the size and shape of the ears, the nose and so forth. The properties are symbols themselves. Now, it is evident that there are some limits on the values these properties can have because of our experience in the real world. However, in our minds, we can set them to whatever fitting value we want.
By using the same logic on more abstract symbols, we can create symbols that have no correspondence with the real world in every level of abstraction. So, for every symbol for which and the symbols that originate from it there is no correspondence with real world experience, there exists a path in the abstraction hierarchy upwards that leads to a symbol from which there is a path in the abstraction hierarchy downwards which leads to a symbol that does have correspondence with reality. To put it simply, let's grab a symbol with no correspondence to reality and start walking on the path towards less tangible symbols from which it inherits properties. Then, at some point, we will reach a symbol that if we walk on the path towards more tangible symbols that inherit from it, we will end up on something we can recognise from the real world.
Of course, beyond the abstraction hierarchy and properties assignment, there are other relations that connect symbols with each other, for instance how a pencil is related to a notebook. The symbols that belong in our imagination may connect with other symbols with relations like this, whether those symbols correspond with reality or not.
Consequently, imagination is defined as the set of symbols and their connections which exist in the human mind for each of which the following property is true: the symbol in question nor any more tangible symbol which inherits properties from it has any correspondence with the real world. If we want to be less rigorous, we can include all the symbols which do not correspond with reality, as we experience it. In that sense, Plato's ideal forms would be part of our imagination. A third, even less rigorous definition would argue that imagination is comprised of the whole system of symbols in our mind, a sub-set of which being reality.
Finally, no matter which definition one may choose, it is undeniable that imagination is an integral part of the human psyche. One could say that the symbols which belong in our imagination are just errors of the system in its efforts to produce symbols that do have correspondence with reality. On the other hand, imagination may well be the mechanism by which humans make hypotheses, experimenting with the limits of consciousness.
I think the answer is rather simple. The human mind, in its efforts to categorise all these classes of objects it has registered, creates hierarchies of abstraction, with more and more abstract classes. By filling in some parameters in these symbols more concrete classes can be produced and by continuing this process the level in which symbols fully correspondent with experience exist can be reached.
Similarly, the products of filling in the parameters in different ways are symbols that in no way correspond with the real world. At this point, an example may come of use: Let's imagine a human. In our minds, we have an idea about his characteristics, the colour of the skin, of the eyes, of the hair, the size and shape of the ears, the nose and so forth. The properties are symbols themselves. Now, it is evident that there are some limits on the values these properties can have because of our experience in the real world. However, in our minds, we can set them to whatever fitting value we want.
By using the same logic on more abstract symbols, we can create symbols that have no correspondence with the real world in every level of abstraction. So, for every symbol for which and the symbols that originate from it there is no correspondence with real world experience, there exists a path in the abstraction hierarchy upwards that leads to a symbol from which there is a path in the abstraction hierarchy downwards which leads to a symbol that does have correspondence with reality. To put it simply, let's grab a symbol with no correspondence to reality and start walking on the path towards less tangible symbols from which it inherits properties. Then, at some point, we will reach a symbol that if we walk on the path towards more tangible symbols that inherit from it, we will end up on something we can recognise from the real world.
Of course, beyond the abstraction hierarchy and properties assignment, there are other relations that connect symbols with each other, for instance how a pencil is related to a notebook. The symbols that belong in our imagination may connect with other symbols with relations like this, whether those symbols correspond with reality or not.
Consequently, imagination is defined as the set of symbols and their connections which exist in the human mind for each of which the following property is true: the symbol in question nor any more tangible symbol which inherits properties from it has any correspondence with the real world. If we want to be less rigorous, we can include all the symbols which do not correspond with reality, as we experience it. In that sense, Plato's ideal forms would be part of our imagination. A third, even less rigorous definition would argue that imagination is comprised of the whole system of symbols in our mind, a sub-set of which being reality.
Finally, no matter which definition one may choose, it is undeniable that imagination is an integral part of the human psyche. One could say that the symbols which belong in our imagination are just errors of the system in its efforts to produce symbols that do have correspondence with reality. On the other hand, imagination may well be the mechanism by which humans make hypotheses, experimenting with the limits of consciousness.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment