altonhare wrote:
1) You have things a bit mixed up. Entity and object are synonyms. An object/entity is that which has shape or a specific arrangement of shapes.
Obviously, I am using the words in a specific sense--to mean what I want them to mean. And that is the sense in which an object is a physical thing, while an entity is a non-physical thing.
Moreover, this is hardly as much of a stretch as you seem to be claiming. According to my dictionary, an object is defined as 1) a thing that can be seen or touched;
material thing that occupies space. Based on this, I think it is clear that your definition is much more of a stretch than mine. The philosophy definition defines an object as anything that can be known or perceived by the mind, so in that sense, your definition is more accurate. However, I am not simply regurgitating mainstream theory here--I'm stating ideas from my own personal theory. And my definition refers to what is typically referred to in plain English when we talk about an object. It is something that physically exists.
As for an Entity, my dictionary defines it as: 1) being; existence 2) a thing that has definite,
individual existence outside or
within the mind; anything real in itself.
A thought has real existence--but it is not a physical object. It is an entity because (although it is real) it is not physical. We see this same sense reflected in the title of the book/movie
The Entity--where an unseen apparition repeatedly assults a woman. Again, we see that the thing is real--it causes effects to happen in the real/physical world--but it has no physical presence. It cannot be seen or touched, like a physical object can be.
In every way, this is precisely the distinction that I was trying to capture. An entity is just as real as an object--but it lacks the physical aspect. However, the confusion that you've stated, is the reason that I generally try to say [physical object] and [conceputal entity] instead of just saying [object] and [entity].
altonhare wrote:A concept is a relationship between two or more objects/entities. Distance is a concept because it involves TWO objects. Motion is a concept because an object must move in comparison to another object. A tree is not a concept. It's a tree. Concepts have opposites, up is the opposite of down, mass is the opposite of mass-less, and push is the opposite of pull. But tree is not the opposite of "no tree".
I strongly disagree. (1) Not all concects involve a relationship of any kind. For example, it could be a mirror reflection of a single object--the only difference being that the [object] is physical and the [conceptual entity] is not.(2) A concept can be a relationship between two concepts--as easily as it is between two physical objects.
A tree is not a concept... True enough.
But the word "tree" refers to both a [conceptual entity] and a [physical object] while being neither of those things to which it refers. A specific [physical tree] is a single instance of the [concept tree]. But both of those things are distinctly differnt from the word "tree" that you are reading on your screen.
The [concept tree] is something that has no physical presence. And we know that it is a distinctly different thing from a physical tree because--once again--it has differnt characteristics. The [concept aspect] refers to [many physical trees], while being itself a [single thing]. Two things which have distinctly different characteristics cannot be the same thing--so we know that [objects] and [entities] are distinctly different aspects, even if they are identical in many ways.
altonhare wrote:
2) This is exactly backwards. A tree is there whether I point to it or not. A concept has no meaning without the object. What meaning can motion have without some THING (object) moving???
Yes, a tree is there whether I point to it or not. That's goes along with what I said about an [object] being what it is. I also agree that (generally speaking) a concept must have an object on which it is based. Mythical creatures, like Unicorns, have statues and books and such on which they are based. And even the first time a writer created the idea of a unicorn, it was based on things that exist: a horse and a horn. The fact that no actual animal exists that exhibits those characteristics doesn't mean that the concept isn't based on ideas.
There is at least one exception... and that is the concept of nothing. Even that, however, can only be defined with respect to physical objects which do not exist. So I think you make a decent argument--but it does not contradict anything that I've said. Just because [objects] are defined by [concepts] doesn't mean that [concepts] aren't also defined by [objects]. That, in fact is the whole basis of my argument. They are each defined by the other.
Just as the fact that x = [y + z] means that [y + z] = x. Things that are equivalent must necessarily define one another.
An equivalency implies that there are some things about each statement that are the same--but there are also things that are different. This is necessarily the case for every definition that has actual meaning. [x = x] is exactly the same on both sides--but it tells us nothing about what [x] is. On the other hand, [x] and [y + z] are different, but one explains what we mean by the other.
[All the physical objects that are trees] define what it means conceptually to be a [tree]. But we can also reverse that, and use that vague conceputal image to evaluate whether something new that we have never seen before and looks very little like any of the [physical objects that we are familiar with] is a tree or not. If this weren't the case, we would not be able to look at a fantasy landscape drawn by Boris and observe that those funny looking shapes in his painting are obviously alien trees. We know that they are trees because they satisfy all of the conceptual requirements that define what it means to be a tree--so they don't have to be identical to what we've already seen.
It is this ability to generalize [actual physical objects] based their [defining concepts] that allows us to recognize people that we haven't seen for a long time. And (I believe) it is responsible for many other of the most advanced mental processes that we perform.
altonhare wrote: 2) What meaning can distance have without two objects??? What meaning can jump have without an object jumping? Concepts have no meaning without objects. I don't know where you got such a misguided notion from. There is no concept with meaning without objects.
You may have had a somewhat decent argument with motion... but it is much weaker for distance. Distance is defined more by empty space than it is by objects. All I have to do to prove this is to pick two arbitrary points in open space. Is there not a specific distance between those two points?
Can I not imagine a unicorn jumping? Since a unicorn is a mythical creature, it cannot be a physical object that is jumping. It is a concept of a physical object that is jumping, so in a sense, it does come back to an object--but again, that only supports my claim that it goes both ways. If it didn't, then you wouldn't be able to get such convoluted layerings of objects inside concepts of objects that are only conceptual... etc.
There is no concept with meaning without objects.
Traditionally, a
set is thought to be [that which contains elements]; while the
empty set is understood to be the [set that doesn't contain any elements]. I think this probably qualifies as a concept that is devoid of objects. Ironically, the way I define an empty set, you are closer to being right. In my personal theory (DS theory of sets) the traditional definition of an empty set is an oxymoron that is inherently paradoxical. How can [that which contains elements] NOT contain elements?
In my theory, there is a clear distinction between [enumeration sets] and [abstraction sets]. We can not enumerate the empty set, because the empty set contains [nothing]. But we can abstract is as follows:
{x:x is nothing}
This abstraction set contains one element:the concept of [nothing]. Thus, it contains [one thing] and yet "nothing" at the same time. Thus, even this concept is in a sense defined by a physical object.
In another sense, nothing is defined by the absence of physical objects. Even the strongest vacuum is teaming with atoms and subatomic particles. So nowhere in the universe is there an actual example of nothing. The only way to demonstrate physically what "nothing" is is to identify a concept that isn't within a limited physical range. For instance, there are no apples on my desk. But there are apples at the store.
altonhare wrote: Lets make sure we have these two points straight before we go talking about the rest of your post.
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply... I wasn't looking for your posts. But I look forward to your response
Well, it's the best answer I've had so far, GC 
