Conceptulizing
Categorization, the first level of abstraction from Reality is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. “Seeing typically involves categorization.â€
Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.
Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization
Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.â€
When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘across from’ some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner.
When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world.
Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language.
The claim of cognitive science is “that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.â€
Conceptulization
Conceptulization
One of the first impressions in my life is one of a single kilowatt bar electric radiation fire. At the time, I had no idea what it was called or where it came from. At the time, I was no more than three years old and it is one of the strongest impressions I have from that era of my life.
In hindsight, I can say that my mother cared enough that she wanted to keep me alive. This is not a funny comment, I was able to establish enough to realise that on other occasions, she did not have the means to make it work again.
I did not know what it was. I did not conceptualise it as a fire. Rather, I felt it. It's warmth woke me up and I looked at it and found comfort in it.
It was an orange glowing bar of light and warmth and I tried to reach out and touch it from my cot. I couldn't reach it, but I watched it lovingly for hours on end not wanting to take my gaze away in case it went away.
I wondered what it was, but I didn't care what it was because it gave me warmth and comfort.
Now, I know what it was and it is no longer the wondrous thing it was then. I frequently woke up at night and the usual darkness left me feeling lonely and wanting comfort. This light comforted me for the night. I remember it well. I spent every waking moment sharing in its warmth. I never saw it again as a baby and it took many years before I found out what it was because my mother never answered my questions.
I didn't care about concepts then. It would have been enough if my mother had told me 'fire'. But she didn't know what the hell I was gesticulating about.
A word has two meanings. The primary meaning is denotative. This is its defined term as per the dictionary.
The secondary meaning is connotative. This is the inferred meaning according to what is associated with the term. Connotative meanings tend to have feelings attached to them. These feelings involve more than the brain. They involve the whole body. They bring with them memories, emotions and other things. This is not cognitive.
In hindsight, I can say that my mother cared enough that she wanted to keep me alive. This is not a funny comment, I was able to establish enough to realise that on other occasions, she did not have the means to make it work again.
I did not know what it was. I did not conceptualise it as a fire. Rather, I felt it. It's warmth woke me up and I looked at it and found comfort in it.
It was an orange glowing bar of light and warmth and I tried to reach out and touch it from my cot. I couldn't reach it, but I watched it lovingly for hours on end not wanting to take my gaze away in case it went away.
I wondered what it was, but I didn't care what it was because it gave me warmth and comfort.
Now, I know what it was and it is no longer the wondrous thing it was then. I frequently woke up at night and the usual darkness left me feeling lonely and wanting comfort. This light comforted me for the night. I remember it well. I spent every waking moment sharing in its warmth. I never saw it again as a baby and it took many years before I found out what it was because my mother never answered my questions.
I didn't care about concepts then. It would have been enough if my mother had told me 'fire'. But she didn't know what the hell I was gesticulating about.
A word has two meanings. The primary meaning is denotative. This is its defined term as per the dictionary.
The secondary meaning is connotative. This is the inferred meaning according to what is associated with the term. Connotative meanings tend to have feelings attached to them. These feelings involve more than the brain. They involve the whole body. They bring with them memories, emotions and other things. This is not cognitive.
Conceptulization
“Cognitive linguists have argued that one concept (e.g. love) can be understood through several different metaphors (e.g., LOVE IS A JOURNEY, LOVE IS INSANITY, LOVE IS AN OPPONENT, LOVE IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY). Murphy warns that such multiple metaphors would result in inconsistency in the mental representation since some of them are inconsistent with one another. Gibbs replies that concepts are not fixed, static structures but rather temporary, dynamic representations that are created on the spot in working memory on the basis of generic and episodic information in long-term memory (which he calls "knowledge" as opposed to "concept"). He argues that this dynamic view of concepts allows us to conceptualize one experience in different ways at different times and to access different aspects of one piece of knowledge. For example, The LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor might be appropriate to create a particular conceptualization of love in certain situations, whereas LOVE IS AN OPPONENT might be suited for creating another concept of love in other situations. Gibbs argues that concepts are independent of each other as a temporary representation in working memory apart from source domain information in long-term memory, thereby accommodating multiple metaphors while avoiding the problem raised by Murphy.â€
http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/ray.html
http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/ray.html
Conceptulization
This is quite a large article, Coberst. I have quickly read the first item by Randall Rose.
Certainly, I agree that cognitive understanding is more based upon the experiences of the senses (whether one or more senses for any particular concept) as perceived by the brain.
The brain, of course, will perceive the experience according to previous experiences. It will then organise the understanding for future reference.
Rose is right to pick up that the brain's conception of the experience is reduced over time. This will be due on the one hand to what I call a 'leaky memory' as the facts of teh experience are dulled with time. On the other hand, new experiences will modify the brain's perception and understanding. Such as the difference between believing dark places are something to be scared of irrespective of how well known the person knows the place, and later, understanding that there is nothing in that dark place to be scared of.
Understanding is definitely experiential according to the quality of the memory. The memory will consist of what was perceived by the brain through the body's senses.
Words, labels, and so on are added later if it is desirable to communicate the experience and understanding of the experience to another person.
I will read the article more fully later, although this may not be until Friday as I am going to be pushed for time this week.
A good argument, though.
Certainly, I agree that cognitive understanding is more based upon the experiences of the senses (whether one or more senses for any particular concept) as perceived by the brain.
The brain, of course, will perceive the experience according to previous experiences. It will then organise the understanding for future reference.
Rose is right to pick up that the brain's conception of the experience is reduced over time. This will be due on the one hand to what I call a 'leaky memory' as the facts of teh experience are dulled with time. On the other hand, new experiences will modify the brain's perception and understanding. Such as the difference between believing dark places are something to be scared of irrespective of how well known the person knows the place, and later, understanding that there is nothing in that dark place to be scared of.
Understanding is definitely experiential according to the quality of the memory. The memory will consist of what was perceived by the brain through the body's senses.
Words, labels, and so on are added later if it is desirable to communicate the experience and understanding of the experience to another person.
I will read the article more fully later, although this may not be until Friday as I am going to be pushed for time this week.
A good argument, though.