Concepts (starting over)

[Ray Martinez]

A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.

The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.

The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.

So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.

That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.

Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.

> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined
> as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting
> legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and
> they could be made of different materials and of different styles.
> The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any
> other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface
> and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came
> along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any
> object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is
> refuted.

Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other, but
you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just said that
the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a concept isn't an
object, so can't be defined as one. You might mean that a table is
defined as an object, but that's not what you said.

> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
> mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
> Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't
> exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.

Well, at least that part seems to be mostly true.

> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.

That isn't at all the purpose of concepts, assuming concepts even have
purposes.

> So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise,
> presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns
> are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.

I've warned you before about using words like "so", "therefore", and
such. For you they serve only as markers that a non sequitur is coming
next. As here. Concepts represent things if you define "thing" very,
very broadly to include intangibles and imaginary entities. There is no
claim of existence embedded in the meaning of "concept", not the usual
meaning and not the meaning you state above.

> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the
> concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism
> thrives.

Anti-evolution thrives because pigheaded fundamentalists like you think
it contradicts their religion. That's all.

Now, I think that by "show that the concept of evolution exists in
nature", and based on your cat example you just mean that one should
provide an example of evolution. Is that right?

Let's start with everyone's favorite, industrial melanism in Biston
betularia. Why is that not an example of evolution that "shows the
concept to exist in nature"?

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.

table (n.)
late 12c., "board, slab, plate," from Old French table "board,
square panel, plank; writing table; picture; food, fare" (11c.), and
late Old English tabele "writing tablet, gaming table," from Germanic
*tabal (cognates: Dutch tafel, Danish tavle, Old High German zabel
"board, plank," German Tafel). Both the French and Germanic words are
from Latin tabula "a board, plank; writing table; list, schedule;
picture, painted panel," originally "small flat slab or piece" usually
for inscriptions or for games (source also of Spanish tabla, Italian
tavola), of uncertain origin, related to Umbrian tafle "on the board."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=table

The concept of _table_ developed over time. Languages *evolve."

>The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.

Do cheetahs count? They lack retractable claws. How about civet cats?
And ferrets are slinky, lazy, nocturnal predators just like your
family feline. Just what sort of claim is this know-it-all word 'cat'
trying to make?

>The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.

Well, I hope you won't think I'm being rude to mention this, but
you've been given generous opportunities to say what kind of claim of
existence you think inventors are making when they develop in their
minds concepts for devices and processes that don't yet exist. Why
have you refused these opportunities to explain your thinking on this
matter?

>So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.'

Do you recognize the nouns in this passage? What kind of claims are
they making?

>That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.

Oh, I think the evidence is pretty strong that the concept of
evolution exists in nature. It is known to have pounced upon a number
of individuals at various points in history. Even more fearful... The
damn thing appears to have evolved over time! It has grown larger,
more subtle and more accurate in its ability to predict events.
There's no point in denying its existence, Ray. It's out there -
lurking.

>
>Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For
> example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an
> object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The
> legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could
> be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface
> of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape.
> The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting
> legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said
> tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a
> flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.

So you want to redefine the word concept, a word that has a lengthy
historical definition with Latin roots. As presented before, concept
derives from conseptus which is a noun form of the verb concipere
which in English is to conceive. A concept is that which was conceived.

Now ideas/concept can be terms like table used to describe a set
of like things but it is not necessarily the broadest possible
group. We have a concept of coffee tables, or dining room tables,
or end tables. So clearly, your attempted definition is failing
in that it claims "broadest possible" when that is not the case
for concepts. That type of concept is a description for the members
of a set, such a the set tables.

However, we have a long established tradition of distinguishing
between the set and members of the set. You family is a set but
individual family members are distinct from the collective. An
individual table is distinct from a collection of all tables.

So you definition fails to correspond with the way we have used
the word concept, with the root origins of the word, and a useful
distinction.

Further, as historically used, concepts describe ideas independently
of there existing concrete objects. It has been more generic simply
covering all things that are thought of. If you can conceive of
an idea, that idea is a concept. You apparently want to discard
this tradition meaning, and this natural meaning as the noun follows
from the verb.

Why? Why should we all agree to change the meaning of "concept" to
accommodate you. Doing so would mean we would need to come up with
a new word to mean what concept used to mean. And whatever this new
word was, it would not be a natural meaning like concept, from conceive
derived from conceptus from concipere.

Further, there is an extensive body of English literature that uses
the word concept in a manner very different from your suggested
meaning. That historical meaning has of course been documented
by professional lexicographers and investigated by etymologists.
It absolutely conflicts with your suggestion, especially in that
it is not limited in the way that you limit "concept".

> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
> mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
> Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't
> exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>
> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most
> generous opportunity to support existence.

This is clearly false. You want to limit the purpose of concept sensu
Ray to be all about claims of existence. Others have not so limited
it. Near as I can tell, nobody but you want to so limit it. You have
even acknowledged exceptions to your assertion about the purpose
of concepts. Nobody denies that concepts can be employed in manners
that make claims of instantiation. Burkard covered this well with
cites to textbooks.

What would it take to get you to reassess your position?

> So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise,
> presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns
> are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.

No they don't as your "unless indicated otherwise" foreshadows.
But it's more than that. Some usages of concepts are clearly
conjectural. So the "indication" is just usage.

As usage dictates if a claim of existence is being made, there
is no need to complicate the definition of a concept with your
assertion about claims of existence. When it's apparent from
usage, there's a claim of existence. When it's not, there isn't one.

> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the
> concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism
> thrives.

And that's just tossing a non sequitur onto obtuse attempts
to redefine words. Let's stick with the attempt to change the
historic definition of "concept".

[jonathan]

On 5/28/2015 5:43 PM, John Harshman wrote:

>
> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other,

So tell me then how the concept of emergence
is related to any specific object?

> but
> you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just said that
> the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a concept isn't an
> object,

But both a concept and an object can become
complex adaptive systems, both evolving
following the same universal laws of
self organizing systems.

So characterizing their similarities
would depend on whether you're talking
about physical or behavioral aspects.

http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/28/15 2:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table."

Of course, the "concept of table" refers to the abstract idea. This
abstract idea encompasses a number of physical objects, but does not
limit it to only physical objects.

> If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.

Showing such an object only proves that such objects exist. The
"concept" of tables, on the other hand remains an abstract idea.

It's also telling that Ray, (apparently the "nut" in the above sentence)
when given plenty of examples of evolution, continues to claim that the
"concept of evolution" doesn't exist. That's not only irrational, but
counter factual.

>
> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat."

And again, the concept is an abstract idea, not the physical creatures
included under the English word "cat". Things that are not members of
the biological family Felidae are also included in the concept of "cat".
Stuffed toys in the shape of cats, imaginary cats, and even things
that bear a slight resemblance to cats all fit within the concept.

> If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.

If so, why do all the examples of evolution presented to you not refute
your assertion that evolution does not exist?

>
> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.

No, the whole purpose of concepts is to permit sharing of ideas. One
does not have to "support existence" of an idea. One must only be able
to convey that idea so that others understand.


>
> So concepts represent things;

No, concepts may represent things, or they may represent potential
things, or they may represent totally imaginary things. Abstract
concepts include intangibles such as "freedom" "honesty", or "Beauty".

> the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence.

Which is completely false. Where exactly did you get this idea?
Please provide the "source" of your claim. If it's unique to you, then
you need to accept you are mistaken. If it came from someone else,
either that person was wrong, or you misunderstood.

> In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.

No one else accepts that assertion. If you believe otherwise, please
show where you get this idea.

>
> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature.

Concepts exists in minds, not in nature. Scientists have shown that
the conditions that are encompassed by the concept of evolution do
exist, and have been directly observed happening.

> This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.

Anti evolution only "thrives" in the midst of ignorance, and sectarian
religious belief. It does not "thrive" when exposed to rationality.
The reason it persists, like a venereal disease, is because of
ignorance, and irrational assumptions.


DJT

[chris thompson]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 7:13:13 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
> On 5/28/2015 5:43 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
> > Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other,
>
>
>
> So tell me then how the concept of emergence
> is related to any specific object?
>

If the specific object is a post that has nothing to do with emergence, we know you'll emerge with a nonsensical connection.

Chris

snip

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>
>The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along

Ray, you're a Grade A talk.origins nut.

>and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.

As you often have been.

[Dale]

On 05/28/2015 03:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table."

that might not be the "concept" of a table but an "instantiation" of a table

I am quite interested in the difference between a "concept" and an
"instantiation"

if you are a materialist you might say

the body is material
the brain is material
things in the brain are material
concepts are in the brain
concepts are material

but how do concepts differ from instantiations?

is a concept something that is construction from sensation of an
instantiation?

take vision for a sensual example

is vision real-time?

is the visual concept the same material thing in the brain as the
instantiation visualized? there are cases where reality is not
necessarily normally perceived

how does one sense interact with the other, and what exactly is a final
concept? in fact what is an instantiation? or is it all concepts in a
pantheistic mind of God(s) that we share?

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

[Roger Shrubber]

Dale wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 03:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table."
>
> that might not be the "concept" of a table but an "instantiation" of a table
>
> I am quite interested in the difference between a "concept" and an
> "instantiation"
>
> if you are a materialist you might say
>
> the body is material
> the brain is material
> things in the brain are material
> concepts are in the brain
> concepts are material
>
> but how do concepts differ from instantiations?

Dale, I am impressed. Well done.

> is a concept something that is construction from sensation of an
> instantiation?
>
> take vision for a sensual example
>
> is vision real-time?

We have clear evidence that it is not. It is close to real-time.
It is probably close enough "for government work", but it is
of course subject to illusions. We know that vision does not
produce perfectly reliable mappings of the things that are
before the eyes, though it mostly does. This has ramifications.

> is the visual concept the same material thing in the brain as the
> instantiation visualized? there are cases where reality is not
> necessarily normally perceived

Yes indeed. Perception is strongly, but not absolutely, correlated
with reality. And the factors that inflict themselves to alter the
fidelity of that correlation between reality and perception vary.

> how does one sense interact with the other, and what exactly is a final
> concept? in fact what is an instantiation? or is it all concepts in a
> pantheistic mind of God(s) that we share?

That has wandered rather far afield. And you have avoided the central
issue of distinction between description of a set, and description of
members of that set. Mathematics and logic addresses this distinction.
Ray hopelessly muddles it.

[Roger Shrubber]

Dale wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 03:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table."
>
> that might not be the "concept" of a table but an "instantiation" of a table
>
> I am quite interested in the difference between a "concept" and an
> "instantiation"
>
> if you are a materialist you might say
>
> the body is material
> the brain is material
> things in the brain are material
> concepts are in the brain
> concepts are material
>
> but how do concepts differ from instantiations?

Are brains perfect? (no, obviously)
Thus concepts which derive from brains are imperfect
representations the nature of collectives. And, collectives
are in essential characteristics, distinct from members
of collectives.

Colorblindness occupies a spectrum of ability to differentiate
colors. The concept of red things thus varies according to the
ability to detect/discriminate on the basis of "red" wavelengths
of light. Yet in an ensemble of individuals, the concept of Red
things exists, even though it differs between individuals.

> is a concept something that is construction from sensation of an
> instantiation?

No. Not in the limiting sense.
It can involve one or more instantiations and a mental process to
develops characterization rules to accommodate that which it wishes
to accommodate, and reject those entities it wishes to reject. And
this definition can be revised as new examples present, or as one
imagines entities that challenge definitions. That last is very very
important, working from abstracted rules to things that might
exist, independently of evidence that they do in fact exist. Because
this is a process of imagination and thus unfettered by the requirement
that there exist instantiations of exceptional forms.

Sadly, I'm convinced this is all beyond Ray's ability to balance
conditionals.

> take vision for a sensual example
>
> is vision real-time?
>
> is the visual concept the same material thing in the brain as the
> instantiation visualized? there are cases where reality is not
> necessarily normally perceived
>
> how does one sense interact with the other, and what exactly is a final
> concept? in fact what is an instantiation? or is it all concepts in a
> pantheistic mind of God(s) that we share?

Vision is not real-time, for high fidelity. That's a fact.

[Dale]

Thanks, much insight, but when I mix materialism with determinism (or
ordainment) I get either philosophical zombie or some lack of
materialism or determinism

particularly conscious, somehow I don't "think" I am a philosophical
zombie, and what Descartes said about thinking relating to existing

not free will since I don't think I am free to will anything, perhaps
free to have limited choice of will in a situation based on my abilities
at the time

there is also the possibility that the illogical exists, even if just a
concept,, that concept can leave the central nervous system, at least by
communication, and enter the realm of instantiation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

[Roger Shrubber]

It's a mistake to name a school of thought, formalize that school
of thought, and then restrict oneself to a fundamentalist adherence
to that school of thought so named, so restricted.

Think legos. Build your own. Don't restrict yourself to pictures
on the packaging.

> particularly conscious, somehow I don't "think" I am a philosophical
> zombie, and what Descartes said about thinking relating to existing
> not free will since I don't think I am free to will anything, perhaps
> free to have limited choice of will in a situation based on my abilities
> at the time

> there is also the possibility that the illogical exists, even if just a
> concept,, that concept can leave the central nervous system, at least by
> communication, and enter the realm of instantiation
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism

You've drifted a bit. Again, don't be a slave to particular
interpretations of particular schools of thought. There are
things referenced above that don't require early (premature)
commitment. Philosophical zombies are not as constrained
as you might initially think.

The statement, "the illogical exists" is under-determined.
More important questions relate to whether or not certain
sets are empty sets or not. And/or questions about the
probability of there existing one or more exemplars in
certain sets are also significant. .

[Roger Shrubber]

I will John Wilkins to come forth, yet I fear he is wallowing in
a well of exhausted will. It's that damn ego thing.

I repeat that you should be wary of pigeonholes, even those
you construct. It seems to me that you are constructing
artificial boundaries that artificially exclude certain
middle grounds. There is too vast a landscape for me to
reasonably attempt to anticipate which boundaries you are
asserting to exclude which middle grounds. So my criticism
remains generic until you commit to more specifics.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b824a453-244f-49b6...@googlegroups.com...

I like the concept af a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It shares most of the characteristics and properties of other concpets like
"Invisible Designer" and the rest of the concepts within the paradigm of
supernature.

> Ray
>

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:H82dnVh7bvlHOPrI...@giganews.com...

Seems to me like since Ray doesn't accept the fact of evolution as a natural
phenomenon but instead embrace a concept of the mainfest evidence of
speciation seen in nature as the result of his own verison of "Intelligent
Design".

Which means there are several concepts wrt. how species change over time: by
natural processes, or by divine intervention. The first is documented fact,
the other is superstition.
BTW, even an invisible designer would need huge resources to accomplishwaht
nature does.
The lack of evidence or signs of the required research laboratories and
mobile manufacturing plants tells us that the concept of ID is empty.

A concept is like a box, it can be full or empty.

You don't know until you open it, like Schrødinger's...

Rolf.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.

OK, Ray, let's test that claim. As only one example of a
potential myriad, I have in my mind the concept of an
interstellar spacecraft which can travel at multiples of c
without violating Special Relativity via an
as-yet-undiscovered loophole in SR. The fairly detailed
concept thus exists.

Now, to validate your assertion, please show me such a
spacecraft.

For another example of a concept unrelated to anything in
actual existence, check out:

http://cooleville.com/haynes-star-trek-manual/

As I noted, there are a myriad examples of such concepts
unrelated to reality.

>The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>
>The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.

As noted above, a concept is a mental structure, which need
not conform to anything in reality.

>So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.

Nope. If you continue to disagree show me that spacecraft.

>That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.

I suspect it thrives because of emotional denial, plus
misunderstanding of both science and religion. But that's
only my concept...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[J. J. Lodder]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For
>example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an
>object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs.

That confirms it. Like I always guessed
she was incapable of multiplication,

Jan

[Ray Martinez]

[FOR THE RECORD: BELOW IS A SLIGHTLY REVISED VERSION OF THE OPENING POST]

A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of different styles, vary in thickness, and made of various materials. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. Common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface supported by legs and the nut is refuted.

The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.

The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow or enable a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Ray, I think you should drop this line of argument. If you just said "The theory of evolution is not supported by the evidence", you would avoid looking foolish. All this business about concepts presupposing existence (unless otherwise specified) or the principle of antynomy, or like causes and like effects, just makes you look nuts. You'd still be wrong, saying that the evidence didn't support evolution, but at least you wouldn't look as though you couldn't string two thoughts together.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/29/15 3:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [FOR THE RECORD: BELOW IS A SLIGHTLY REVISED VERSION OF THE OPENING POST]
>
> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.

No, a concept is an abstract idea. That is what you keep getting wrong
all this time. By starting your statement with something so obviously
false, you don't inspire any confidence that anything else you write
will be any better.

> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs.

You can't define a concept as a particular object. Concepts are a
mental image. They may include physical objects, but they are not the
object itself. Whatever one thinks of Ms. Rand, and her legacy, you
are making her look like a fool by ascribing your own confusion to her.

> The legs could be short or long and of different styles, vary in thickness, and made of various materials. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. Common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface supported by legs and the nut is refuted.
>

What if that "nut" refused to accept that the "concept of tables"
exists in nature? What if he claimed that people only see tables
because they are cursed by God to see them for the crime of believing
that tables exist?

If that person already made up his mind that tables don't exist,
they won't exist to him. That person can see the object that others
call a "table" but to him it must be something else.

What would your response to that person be?

> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>

Again, what if that "nut" claimed that the because the concept of
"dogs" exists in nature, the concept of cat can't be true. No matter
how many cats you show to that person, he will insist that the existence
of dogs "trumps" the existence of cats?

What would your reply to that person be?


snip the rest, as addressed earlier.


DJT

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> [FOR THE RECORD: BELOW IS A SLIGHTLY REVISED VERSION OF THE OPENING
> POST]
>
> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For
> example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an
> object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The
> legs could be short or long and of different styles, vary in
> thickness, and made of various materials. The surface of a table
> could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. Common
> denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs;
> hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables
> don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat
> surface supported by legs and the nut is refuted.
>
> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
> mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
> Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't
> exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>
> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow or enable a claimant
> the most generous opportunity to support existence.

Try to follow me here Ray. You have some things partly right but
fail to apply those things in a self-consistent way while wondering
into assertions that fail on all sorts of levels.

Some concepts are, indeed, broadly defined abstractions. Table is
indeed a broad category concept, broader than end table, or kitchen
table, not as broad as furniture. Each of these reflects a level of
refinement of an idea about a useful way to create a category. We
can put a word to the idea, the concept, and it helps us communicate
the right level of refinement the idea, sometimes furniture, sometimes
table, sometimes end table. So far, so good.

Now lets apply this to the concept of what a concept is. It helps
to know something about how the word came to be. It turns out that
the word concept comes from the word conceive which roughly means
to give birth to an idea in this context. A concept is thus an idea
that one has given birth too. This is a documented fact. I can
supply etymologies upon request.

Now, nothing in that says what kind of idea, so the word concept
rightly holds the broadest possible meaning by including all types
of ideas. Good ideas, silly ideas, ideas about the future, the past,
ideas about things that exist and ideas about things that don't exist.

It's a good word. It helps us communicate about the category of
things that are ideas. We need such a category and concepts is
the word we use to describe that category.

And ideas do exist quite independently of whether or not the things
the ideas are about exist. The idea of unicorns exists as is
demonstrated by our ability to talk to one another about paintings
of unicorns or stories about unicorns, or unicorns in stories and
paintings and how people came up the the idea of a unicorn. The
idea clearly exists. Actual unicorns, not so much.

But you've got this assertion above - that the whole point of
concepts is to allow people to make claims supporting the existence of
the things that fall under the set of things that the concept describes.

That directly conflicts with what has already been established,
that "concept" describes an idea in a much broader and less constrained
sense. For clearly not all ideas are about attempting to establish
what does and doesn't exist, not even close. People who are sure
that tables exist still talk about tables. People who are sure
that unicorns don't exist still talk about unicorns. We invoke
concepts, and use the label of concept for those concepts, for
many other purposes.

You claim that concepts have this specific narrow purpose directly
contradicts with the idea that concepts are things that encapsulate
some appropriately abstracted category. That contradiction is
fatal to your claim.

That contradiction is evident in the roots of the word which indicate it
was crafted to deal with ideas in a generic sense.

Now there is also an extensive history of usage behind "concept"
that conflicts with your claim about "whole entire purpose of concepts".

And it's a pretty fatal to fail by simple analysis of the word origins,
to fail by etymological analysis, and to produce claims that are
self-contradictory as part of your core thesis.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>
> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.

That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept entails and actually is.

The only requirement is a definition. And said definition is succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**

>
> > For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined
> > as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting
> > legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and
> > they could be made of different materials and of different styles.
> > The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any
> > other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface
> > and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came
> > along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any
> > object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is
> > refuted.
>
> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other, but
> you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just said that
> the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a concept isn't an
> object, so can't be defined as one. You might mean that a table is
> defined as an object, but that's not what you said.

What did I say? Obviously I know exactly what I said. I defined concept then gave two examples that fit the definition precisely. Your comments above do not reflect any obligatory accuracy of what I said.

I believe you're confusing "conception" and "conceived" with valid definitions of "concept."

>
> > The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
> > mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
> > Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't
> > exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>
> Well, at least that part seems to be mostly true.

The first example, except for the object, is exactly the same. And the example above has perfect correspondence with the definition: "A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing."

>
> > The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
> >
> That isn't at all the purpose of concepts, assuming concepts even have
> purposes.

In context, what I wrote follows. It seems you actually believe the word itself is at issue. This is completely false. The word or noun/concept, its only purpose, is to identify the alleged thing----that's why it exists----its reason-for-being. Most of the time said word or noun/concept only came into existence because the alleged thing first existed, as in the case of the concept of cat.

So the purpose of concepts is to refer to any reasonable notion of the alleged thing. That is seen in each example given, cats and tables.

>
> > So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise,
> > presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns
> > are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>
> I've warned you before about using words like "so", "therefore", and
> such. For you they serve only as markers that a non sequitur is coming
> next. As here. Concepts represent things if you define "thing" very,
> very broadly to include intangibles and imaginary entities. There is no
> claim of existence embedded in the meaning of "concept", not the usual
> meaning and not the meaning you state above.

But I did define "thing" very broadly; the same is seen in the definition of concept and, more importantly, in the examples themselves. Imaginary entities are not included because these do not presuppose existence. Again, as stated in the OP, the arena of concern is epistemology and science, not science fiction. I do understand that imagination plays a role in ideas but that is far different than your "imaginary entities" (JH). I imagine that black holes, for example, were first imagined but they are not imaginary entities----they're inferred to exist.

And again, you assert: "There is no claim of existence embedded in the meaning of "concept." (JH). My definition and ensuing examples show otherwise; and our context of topic, epistemology, and science dictates that your assertion means when the word "concept" appears in scholarly publications the author is not talking about things in reality----which is preposterous and insulting. YOU might mean that in YOUR publications but when Theobald spoke of the concept of evolution in the opening sentence of "29+ Evidences" he was referring to the "fact of evolution" as established by the various branches of evolutionary science. To say said reference does not presuppose existence of evolution is to ignore who the author is and the reason-for-being of said paper: explicate the fact to the reader.

>
> > That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the
> > concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism
> > thrives.
>
> Anti-evolution thrives because pigheaded fundamentalists like you think
> it contradicts their religion. That's all.
>
> Now, I think that by "show that the concept of evolution exists in
> nature", and based on your cat example you just mean that one should
> provide an example of evolution. Is that right?

Negative. BASED on the two examples of a thing, possessing wide variance, I'm saying scientists like yourself have not and cannot show the concept of evolution----by the widest variance, whether that be in genetics, morphology, fossil record, etc. etc. as existing in nature. Remember I said:

"The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow [or enable] a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence."

In other words you guys can't show ANY evolutionary change, even micro-evolutionary change, existing at any level. So I'm making a claim about the failure of evolutionary scientists. They can't even show the mere concept as existing.

Why?

Because the concept of design exists in nature. Design infers Intelligent or vertical causation thus horizontal or unintelligent causation cannot logically exist. Absent unintelligent causation, change cannot be evolutionary. So whatever unique patters biologists uncover, and whatever faunal sequences that are discovered as well, based on the observation or appearance of design in nature, the preceding are accounted for and explained as the way the Creator/Designer chose to create.

>
> Let's start with everyone's favorite, industrial melanism in Biston
> betularia. Why is that not an example of evolution that "shows the
> concept to exist in nature"?

Actually I'm not familiar with that example. But I'll engage anyway. Tell me, how do you know that change was accomplished by an unintelligent agent?

Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

I'm making a second reply with a different point.
In this definition you assert, your concept of what a concept is
differs from my concept of what a concept is. And it differs from
what dictionaries tell me a concept is.

You concept of what a concept is encodes a set of rules that you
apply to something that is a concept.

If I'm correct in calling what you have proposed to a a concept of
what a concept is, and it is at least correct usage in terms of how
people use the word concept in many professional situations, then
a few things are established.

A concept can be a set of rules. These rules are human constructs.
Ray's rules for what a concept is are a set of rules as communicated
in Ray's usenet post on _Concepts (starting over)_.

Did you conceive of this set of rules to establish the proposition
that your set of rules exist, consistently with your claims that all
concepts are created for that purpose? That seems odd as to the
extent that a set of rules that Ray asserts _exist_, of course
they exist the moment you assert them. By the same token, the rules
I assert that describe what a concept is (or what a table is, or
what an end table is) exist as soon as I assert them.

Why then would I ever care about establishing their existence given
that said existence is instantiated conclusively the moment I speak
them or write them down. Your assertion that the whole point of
conceiving of a concept is to establish the existence becomes a
very dubious enterprise for a great many concepts.

Now I suspect that you have had trouble following me because there
exists a second level of abstraction in referring so explicitly
to the concept of concepts, or to the rules of a concept which
is in effect the concepts behind the concept of X. But the world
of abstraction requires the ability to form abstractions of
abstractions. By its very nature, the word _concept_ is defining
an abstract category about an abstracted collection.

Sadly, I feel I'm metaphorically wasting pearls.

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 4:13:13 PM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
> On 5/28/2015 5:43 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
> > Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other,
>
>
>
> So tell me then how the concept of emergence
> is related to any specific object?

Example: The train, as expected, suddenly emerged from the tunnel.

Ray

[snip....]

[John Harshman]

On 5/29/15, 4:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>>
>> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.
>
> That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept entails and actually is.

By "almost nobody" I meant almost nobody in the world, not just on this
news group. Everybody does it wrong except Ray.

> The only requirement is a definition. And said definition is
> succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**

You can always redefine any word to mean whatever you like. But you
can't expect others to follow along.

>>> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined
>>> as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting
>>> legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and
>>> they could be made of different materials and of different styles.
>>> The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any
>>> other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface
>>> and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came
>>> along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any
>>> object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is
>>> refuted.
>>
>> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other, but
>> you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just said that
>> the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a concept isn't an
>> object, so can't be defined as one. You might mean that a table is
>> defined as an object, but that's not what you said.
>
> What did I say? Obviously I know exactly what I said. I defined
> concept then gave two examples that fit the definition precisely.
> Your comments above do not reflect any obligatory accuracy of what I
> said.

"Any obligatory accuracy"? You may know what you said, but I don't think
you understand how any other person would understand what you said.
Again, you defined a concept as an object. Do you see that?

> I believe you're confusing "conception" and "conceived" with valid definitions of "concept."

You believe incorrectly.

>>> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
>>> mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
>>> Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't
>>> exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>>
>> Well, at least that part seems to be mostly true.
>
> The first example, except for the object, is exactly the same. And
> the example above has perfect correspondence with the definition: "A
> concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing."

No, it isn't. A concept isn't a thing, and it isn't variation in a
thing. I don't think you believe that yourself. You just express
yourself very badly.

>>> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>>>
>> That isn't at all the purpose of concepts, assuming concepts even have
>> purposes.
>
> In context, what I wrote follows. It seems you actually believe the
> word itself is at issue. This is completely false. The word or
> noun/concept, its only purpose, is to identify the alleged
> thing----that's why it exists----its reason-for-being. Most of the
> time said word or noun/concept only came into existence because the
> alleged thing first existed, as in the case of the concept of cat.

You should assume as a default that nothing you write follows from
anything else you write; safer that way. No, the word is not at issue.
The meaning of the word may be at issue, though. And the word is not the
concept, nor are "noun" and "concept" synonyms. You have also been told
about plenty of concepts for which the things being conceptualized do
not exist.

> So the purpose of concepts is to refer to any reasonable notion of
> the alleged thing. That is seen in each example given, cats and
> tables.

No, those are words, not concepts. Words label concepts. And some
notions are unreasonable, but they still can be concepts.

>>> So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise,
>>> presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns
>>> are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>>
>> I've warned you before about using words like "so", "therefore", and
>> such. For you they serve only as markers that a non sequitur is coming
>> next. As here. Concepts represent things if you define "thing" very,
>> very broadly to include intangibles and imaginary entities. There is no
>> claim of existence embedded in the meaning of "concept", not the usual
>> meaning and not the meaning you state above.
>
> But I did define "thing" very broadly; the same is seen in the
> definition of concept and, more importantly, in the examples
> themselves. Imaginary entities are not included because these do not
> presuppose existence. Again, as stated in the OP, the arena of
> concern is epistemology and science, not science fiction. I do
> understand that imagination plays a role in ideas but that is far
> different than your "imaginary entities" (JH). I imagine that black
> holes, for example, were first imagined but they are not imaginary
> entities----they're inferred to exist.

You didn't define "thing" at all. If it's your claim that concepts
presuppose existence, isn't it disingenuous to leave out of discussion
all the concepts that don't presuppose existence? The concept of
"concept" doesn't include existence. You have to deal with that.

> And again, you assert: "There is no claim of existence embedded in
> the meaning of "concept." (JH). My definition and ensuing examples
> show otherwise;

No, two examples can't show otherwise. You have to cover all possible
examples if you want to prove an absolute by example. Further, the
concepts of "table" and "cat" do not presuppose that tables and cats
exist; we just happen to know that they do. They're no different at
bottom from the concept of "dragon".

> and our context of topic, epistemology, and science
> dictates that your assertion means when the word "concept" appears in
> scholarly publications the author is not talking about things in
> reality----which is preposterous and insulting.

No, it supposes no such thing. You have trouble with the difference
between "does not claim x" and "claims not-x".

> YOU might mean that
> in YOUR publications but when Theobald spoke of the concept of
> evolution in the opening sentence of "29+ Evidences" he was referring
> to the "fact of evolution" as established by the various branches of
> evolutionary science. To say said reference does not presuppose
> existence of evolution is to ignore who the author is and the
> reason-for-being of said paper: explicate the fact to the reader.

The concept of evolution doesn't presuppose existence; sentences in
which the concept is embedded may do so, though.

>>> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the
>>> concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism
>>> thrives.
>>
>> Anti-evolution thrives because pigheaded fundamentalists like you think
>> it contradicts their religion. That's all.
>>
>> Now, I think that by "show that the concept of evolution exists in
>> nature", and based on your cat example you just mean that one should
>> provide an example of evolution. Is that right?
>
> Negative. BASED on the two examples of a thing, possessing wide
> variance, I'm saying scientists like yourself have not and cannot
> show the concept of evolution----by the widest variance, whether that
> be in genetics, morphology, fossil record, etc. etc. as existing in
> nature.

No idea what you think you mean by that.

> Remember I said:
> "The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow [or enable] a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence."

Yes, and I told you that was nonsense.

> In other words you guys can't show ANY evolutionary change, even
> micro-evolutionary change, existing at any level. So I'm making a
> claim about the failure of evolutionary scientists. They can't even
> show the mere concept as existing.

What's the difference between the concept of evolution and evolution itself?

> Why?
>
> Because the concept of design exists in nature. Design infers
> Intelligent or vertical causation thus horizontal or unintelligent
> causation cannot logically exist. Absent unintelligent causation,
> change cannot be evolutionary. So whatever unique patters biologists
> uncover, and whatever faunal sequences that are discovered as well,
> based on the observation or appearance of design in nature, the
> preceding are accounted for and explained as the way the
> Creator/Designer chose to create.

You are incapable of writing a clear sentence. You don't know the
difference between "infer" and "imply". I can't even begin to reply to that.

>> Let's start with everyone's favorite, industrial melanism in Biston
>> betularia. Why is that not an example of evolution that "shows the
>> concept to exist in nature"?
>
> Actually I'm not familiar with that example. But I'll engage anyway.
> Tell me, how do you know that change was accomplished by an
> unintelligent agent?

First, I'm amazed that you, as one so versed in evolutionary biology
that you can write a book refuting all of it, don't know the peppered
moth story. To answer, I suppose it's impossible to know that, because
an intelligent agent of sufficient power could always imitate the
actions of anthing, right? But given the data, it's unparsimonious to
suppose anything other than mutation and selection in this case, so
that's what we do.

[Roger Shrubber]

r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>>
>> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.
>
> That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept
> entails and actually is.
>
> The only requirement is a definition. And said definition is
> succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**

Can you expound further, please?

The distinction I want is if you are saying that you can define
any word to be whatever you like as long as you provide a
definition that is "succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding
explanation**"

or

are you saying that to be a concept, that thing only requires
a definition that is "succinct, precise, and followed by a
**corresponding explanation**"

Or are you saying something else? In effect, where you say above
"the only requirement is for ...", I'm asking you to specify
_requirement for what?_ It is not clear in what you wrote.

>>> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is
>>> defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four
>>> supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied
>>> thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of
>>> different styles. The surface of a table could be square,
>>> rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator
>>> features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the
>>> "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't
>>> exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface
>>> with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>>
>> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other,
>> but you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just
>> said that the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a
>> concept isn't an object, so can't be defined as one. You might mean
>> that a table is defined as an object, but that's not what you
>> said.
>
> What did I say? Obviously I know exactly what I said. I defined
> concept then gave two examples that fit the definition precisely.
> Your comments above do not reflect any obligatory accuracy of what I
> said.

Yeck, where is the phrase "obligatory accuracy of what I said" come
from? Those words do not work together.

As posted elsewhere, you defined something about what concepts
should be and then ran afoul of that definition in attempting
to limit the concept of "concepts". Your rules for what a
concept is are self-contradictory. You first assert that
concepts casts the broadest possible net, but then you assert a very
restricted definition in the case of the concept of what a concept
is. You violate your own rule of what concepts are in your specification
of what concepts are. They cannot simultaneously be the widest
allowable variation in a thing and a capriciously limited variation
of a thing with lots of ad-hoc exceptions.
Shaka, When the Walls Fell

> I believe you're confusing "conception" and "conceived" with valid
> definitions of "concept."

Valid according to somebody other than Ray? Valid according
to lexicographers and etymologists and semiotics? Valid according
to whom?

>>> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
>>> mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
>>> Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats
>>> don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is
>>> refuted.
>>
>> Well, at least that part seems to be mostly true.
>
> The first example, except for the object, is exactly the same. And
> the example above has perfect correspondence with the definition: "A
> concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing."

What is then the widest allowable variation in "concept"?
Dictionaries identify a concept an an idea. But rather than permit
the widest possible variation in ideas that are concepts, you assert
a set of rules limiting the types of ideas that qualify as a
concept. You contradict yourself in defining what concepts are
and what a concept is. You ignore historical usage, the roots of
the words, and you spew forth self-contradictory nonsense.

Have some sense of shame.

>>> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the
>>> most generous opportunity to support existence.
>>>
>> That isn't at all the purpose of concepts, assuming concepts even
>> have purposes.

> In context, what I wrote follows. It seems you actually believe the
> word itself is at issue. This is completely false. The word or
> noun/concept, its only purpose, is to identify the alleged
> thing----that's why it exists----its reason-for-being. Most of the
> time said word or noun/concept only came into existence because the
> alleged thing first existed, as in the case of the concept of cat.

Most of the time is clearly not "the widest allowable variation"
in a thing. The widest allowable variation in a thing has to
include all the reasons, not just the "most of the time" reasons.
You assert this bit about "most of the time". I disagree with
that assertion but arguing about it isn't required. All we need
is that some of the time that isn't the reason that a concept
comes into being. Because then your definition contradicts itself.
You can't be the "widest possible" and be restricted to "most of
the time" simultaneously. You contradict yourself. Admit it.
Your asserted definition is utter bilge.

> So the purpose of concepts is to refer to any reasonable notion of
> the alleged thing. That is seen in each example given, cats and
> tables.

Lots of examples that work do not provide solace from a few
examples that don't work. "Most of the time" isn't good enough
for definitions of categories, as you your own attempt to
define concepts acknowledges. You need your definition to be
all encompassing, not just "most of the time" encompassing.

You appeal to consequences that you dislike. The fact that you dislike
them has not been a concern to scientists or scholars of the past
centuries. The term "concept" does not magically transition to one
particular epistemology for discussions of science. That would indeed
violate your attempt to define "the widest allowable variation".
If, by some special exception, _concept_ held a different meaning
within science, you could provide citations to that exception. You
have never managed to do so. My experience with scientific writing
suggests that no such ad-hoc exception is in play. _concept_ is
such a foundational word that I have to expect that a remapping
of the meaning of the word would be discussed frequently if such
had taken place.

> YOU might mean that
> in YOUR publications but when Theobald spoke of the concept of
> evolution in the opening sentence of "29+ Evidences" he was referring
> to the "fact of evolution" as established by the various branches of
> evolutionary science. To say said reference does not presuppose
> existence of evolution is to ignore who the author is and the
> reason-for-being of said paper: explicate the fact to the reader.

Single examples of "concept" that conform to your restricted
definition do not provide evidence that the general definition
of "concept" conforms to your definition. Single tables that
have 4 legs do not transform the definition of "table" to be
things that have 4 legs. The "widest allowable variation"
does not constrict in the fact of a set of examples that have
narrower variation.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/29/15 5:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>>
>> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.
>
> That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept entails and actually is.

This definition of yours is not used by anyone else. Why should anyone
abandon the standard definition and use yours?

>
> The only requirement is a definition.

Actually, others have to agree with your definition, or you are just
talking to yourself.

> And said definition is succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**

and also very wrong. It doesn't fit what everyone that is not Ray
Martinez means when they use the term 'concept'.

>
>>
>>> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined
>>> as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting
>>> legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and
>>> they could be made of different materials and of different styles.
>>> The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any
>>> other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface
>>> and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came
>>> along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any
>>> object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is
>>> refuted.
>>
>> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other, but
>> you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just said that
>> the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a concept isn't an
>> object, so can't be defined as one. You might mean that a table is
>> defined as an object, but that's not what you said.
>
> What did I say? Obviously I know exactly what I said.

Do you? What you said doesn't make sense in English. John's phrase
does make sense. Did you mean to speak gibberish?

> I defined concept then gave two examples that fit the definition precisely.

The reality is that your examples are sorely lacking. The "concept of
table" rather than being an object called "table", is in reality a
mental construct that fits a large number physical objects, as well as
quite a few fictional and imaginary ones as well. The "concept of cat"
fits many things that are not members of the biological family Felidae.
That indicates your definition is woefully inadequate.

> Your comments above do not reflect any obligatory accuracy of what I said.

Out of curiosity, what does "obligatory accuracy" mean? It doesn't
seem to fit in the context of your sentence.

>
> I believe you're confusing "conception" and "conceived" with valid definitions of "concept."

Where do you get that idea, Ray? Unlike you, John, and most everyone
else here knows what words actually mean.

>
>>
>>> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
>>> mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
>>> Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't
>>> exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>>
>> Well, at least that part seems to be mostly true.
>
> The first example, except for the object, is exactly the same.

No, it's not. In the first, you claimed the "concept of table" was
defined as a physical object. In this you say that the "concept of cat"
includes various types of cats. You aren't defining the concept as a
single object. You are still wrong, but not as wrong as in the first
case.

> And the example above has perfect correspondence with the definition: "A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing."

But that definition is incorrect to begin with. It may correspond with
your error, but it's still an error.

>
>>
>>> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>>>
>> That isn't at all the purpose of concepts, assuming concepts even have
>> purposes.
>
> In context, what I wrote follows. It seems you actually believe the word itself is at issue. This is completely false. The word or noun/concept, its only purpose, is to identify the alleged thing----that's why it exists----its reason-for-being.

What John appears to be saying is that concepts are not used to "support
existence" of anything. They exist on their own, as mental constructs.
A concept may include a physical object, but there is no requirement
that it supports the existence of anything.

> Most of the time said word or noun/concept only came into existence because the alleged thing first existed, as in the case of the concept of cat.

Concepts come into being within the minds of humans. They may, or may
not correspond to physical things. The certainly are not claims of
what exists, or does not exist. That's your own mistake.

>
> So the purpose of concepts is to refer to any reasonable notion of the alleged thing.

No, concepts exist whether or not there is a "purpose" to them.
Concepts don't even need to be "reasonable".

> That is seen in each example given, cats and tables.

Would you agree that the concept of "freedom" exists? If so, show me
the physical object called "freedom".

>
>>
>>> So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise,
>>> presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns
>>> are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>>
>> I've warned you before about using words like "so", "therefore", and
>> such. For you they serve only as markers that a non sequitur is coming
>> next. As here. Concepts represent things if you define "thing" very,
>> very broadly to include intangibles and imaginary entities. There is no
>> claim of existence embedded in the meaning of "concept", not the usual
>> meaning and not the meaning you state above.
>
> But I did define "thing" very broadly;

and very badly....

> the same is seen in the definition of concept and, more importantly, in the examples themselves.

Your examples don't even come close to broadly corresponding with the
concept they are supposed to convey. There is a lot more to the
"concept of table" than just physical objects. Likewise, the "concept
of cat" goes far beyond animals of the family Felidae.

> Imaginary entities are not included because these do not presuppose existence.

Which shows your definition of concept is wrong. If they don't include
imaginary entities, your definition is horribly incomplete. In any
case, concepts do not presuppose existence. That is what you are trying
to show. There's no reason why it should be taken as a given.

> Again, as stated in the OP, the arena of concern is epistemology and science, not science fiction.

But the understood meaning of "concept" does include all areas of human
thought. Again you are just showing your definition to be massively
inadequate.

> I do understand that imagination plays a role in ideas but that is far different than your "imaginary entities" (JH).

How is it different? Please explain.

> I imagine that black holes, for example, were first imagined but they are not imaginary entities----they're inferred to exist.

They still were imagined long before they could be inferred.

>
> And again, you assert: "There is no claim of existence embedded in the meaning of "concept." (JH).

and he's correct. You've never been able to show why your own
definition is better.

> My definition and ensuing examples show otherwise;

Actually, you only showed that your definition was not up to the task of
defining the term.

> and our context of topic, epistemology, and science dictates that your assertion means when the word "concept" appears in scholarly publications the author is not talking about things in reality----which is preposterous and insulting.

Ray, no one but you uses the word "concept" limited to only things in
the physical world. It's not preposterous, or insulting that other
people understand the language better than you do.

> YOU might mean that in YOUR publications but when Theobald spoke of the concept of evolution in the opening sentence of "29+ Evidences" he was referring to the "fact of evolution" as established by the various branches of evolutionary science.

Dr. Theobald was referring to the mental construct of evolution, as
understood by scientists. It corresponds to the real fact that species
change over time, something you openly deny. But the concept itself is
not the fact of species change, but everything included in the concept.

> To say said reference does not presuppose existence of evolution is to ignore who the author is and the reason-for-being of said paper: explicate the fact to the reader.

The concept does not "presuppose" the existence of evolution.
Evolution is shown to exist by the evidence, not the concept of it.

>
>>
>>> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the
>>> concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism
>>> thrives.
>>
>> Anti-evolution thrives because pigheaded fundamentalists like you think
>> it contradicts their religion. That's all.
>>
>> Now, I think that by "show that the concept of evolution exists in
>> nature", and based on your cat example you just mean that one should
>> provide an example of evolution. Is that right?
>
> Negative. BASED on the two examples of a thing, possessing wide variance, I'm saying scientists like yourself have not and cannot show the concept of evolution----by the widest variance, whether that be in genetics, morphology, fossil record, etc. etc. as existing in nature.

Which is false on it's face.

> Remember I said:
>
> "The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow [or enable] a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence."

Supporting existence of a physical process is done by presenting
evidence, not by "presupposing" it.

>
> In other words you guys can't show ANY evolutionary change, even micro-evolutionary change, existing at any level.

It's been shown quite clearly to anyone who isn't willfully blind.
That you refuse to look is not the problem for the concept of evolution.

> So I'm making a claim about the failure of evolutionary scientists.

Based only on your personal ignorance.

> They can't even show the mere concept as existing.

They can show the fact of it happening. Showing the "concept" existing
is irrelevant.

>
> Why?
>
> Because the concept of design exists in nature.

The 'concept of design' even if it were something you could see, and
even if you could show that the appearance of design is equal to the
actual fact of design, does not invalidate the fact that species change
over time.

> Design infers Intelligent or vertical causation thus horizontal or unintelligent causation cannot logically exist.

Once again, asserting something does not make a logical argument.
You've never been able to put together a logical case for why "design"
and evolution can't exist at the same time.

> Absent unintelligent causation, change cannot be evolutionary.

Again, that's just argument by assertion. Evolutionary change is
defined as change in allele frequencies over generation. That's been
shown to happen in numerous studies. It doesn't matter one whit if the
causation is "intelligent" or not.




> So whatever unique patters biologists uncover, and whatever faunal sequences that are discovered as well, based on the observration or appearance of design in nature, the preceding are accounted for and explained as the way the Creator/Designer chose to create.

Which says, in effect, that God uses evolution to create. That's what
the people you hate have been saying for the last 150 years.

>
>>
>> Let's start with everyone's favorite, industrial melanism in Biston
>> betularia. Why is that not an example of evolution that "shows the
>> concept to exist in nature"?
>
> Actually I'm not familiar with that example.

Sure you are, Ray. Peppered Moths.

> But I'll engage anyway. Tell me, how do you know that change was accomplished by an unintelligent agent?

Because soot, and bird predation is not intelligent.


DJT

[Burkhard]

In the category: in an emergent-cy, pull the emerget brake

[Joe Cummings]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 10:58:13 PM UTC+2, Ray Martinez wrote:
> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.

>
> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>

> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>

> So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>

> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
>

> Ray

Ah, more foolery from Ray.

I was under the impression that concepts were the material that the mind works with.

To argue that the determinant of "concept" is existence is to talk gibberish.

Let's try a practical test:

Here are two concepts,

"The impossibility of the existence of life on other planets."

"The possibilty of the existence of life on other planets."

These are both acceptable concepts in the sense that they are legitimate subjects of ratiocination, and one can have various opinions about them.

Would Ray say that they aren't concepts? Or will he (as I think he will) come up with some ad hoc use of another word to maintain his "definition?"

[jonathan]

A train exits a tunnel, emergence in the context of
evolving systems has a different meaning.

A train emerges from the interaction between it's parts
not from any one of its parts.


Emergence
From Wikipedia

"In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art,
emergence is a process whereby larger entities,
patterns, and regularities arise through
interactions among smaller or simpler entities
that themselves do not exhibit such properties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence







> [snip....]
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 10:26:57 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Your "rephrase" of the error elsethread changed essentially
nothing; the error is still an error. Now how about
addressing my post?

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 1:48:10 AM UTC-7, Joe Cummings wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 10:58:13 PM UTC+2, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
> >
> > The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
> >
> > The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
> >
> > So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
> >
> > That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Ah, more foolery from Ray.
>
> I was under the impression that concepts were the material that the mind works with.
>

Yes, exactly correct.

> To argue that the determinant of "concept" is existence is to talk gibberish.
>

Yet just above you recognized the material (= existence).

> Let's try a practical test:
>
> Here are two concepts,
>
> "The impossibility of the existence of life on other planets."
>
> "The possibilty of the existence of life on other planets."
>
> These are both acceptable concepts in the sense that they are legitimate subjects of ratiocination, and one can have various opinions about them.
>
> Would Ray say that they aren't concepts? Or will he (as I think he will) come up with some ad hoc use of another word to maintain his "definition?"
>

Both are concepts or claims about reality; currently the upper and lower are unsupported or false concepts due to lack of positive evidence in support.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 3:03:13 PM UTC-7, Jimbo wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface [and] supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>
> table (n.)
> late 12c., "board, slab, plate," from Old French table "board,
> square panel, plank; writing table; picture; food, fare" (11c.), and
> late Old English tabele "writing tablet, gaming table," from Germanic
> *tabal (cognates: Dutch tafel, Danish tavle, Old High German zabel
> "board, plank," German Tafel). Both the French and Germanic words are
> from Latin tabula "a board, plank; writing table; list, schedule;
> picture, painted panel," originally "small flat slab or piece" usually
> for inscriptions or for games (source also of Spanish tabla, Italian
> tavola), of uncertain origin, related to Umbrian tafle "on the board."
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=table
>
> The concept of _table_ developed over time. Languages *evolve."

>
>
> >The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>

> Do cheetahs count?

Yes, of course.

> They lack retractable claws. How about civet cats?
> And ferrets are slinky, lazy, nocturnal predators just like your
> family feline. Just what sort of claim is this know-it-all word 'cat'
> trying to make?

I didn't coin said word. All I'm saying is that the concept, as explained, exists.

>
> >The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>

> Well, I hope you won't think I'm being rude to mention this, but
> you've been given generous opportunities to say what kind of claim of
> existence you think inventors are making when they develop in their
> minds concepts for devices and processes that don't yet exist. Why
> have you refused these opportunities to explain your thinking on this
> matter?

I would say that most inventions originate from ideas obtained from reality. Whatever the case the point is: until the thing exists the idea or concept is a false claim about reality.

>
> >So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>

> 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
> All mimsy were the borogoves,
> And the mome raths outgrabe.'
>
> Do you recognize the nouns in this passage? What kind of claims are
> they making?

I don't understand the passage.

>
> >That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
>

> Oh, I think the evidence is pretty strong that the concept of
> evolution exists in nature. It is known to have pounced upon a number
> of individuals at various points in history. Even more fearful... The
> damn thing appears to have evolved over time! It has grown larger,
> more subtle and more accurate in its ability to predict events.
> There's no point in denying its existence, Ray. It's out there -
> lurking.
>
> >
> >Ray

Appearance of design in nature falsifies.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 7:28:08 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
> On 5/29/2015 7:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

Replies owed to Roger Shrubber and John Harshman take more time than I have. So these won't happen until Monday.

> > On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 4:13:13 PM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2015 5:43 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So tell me then how the concept of emergence
> >> is related to any specific object?
> >
> > Example: The train, as expected, suddenly emerged from the tunnel.
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
>
>
> A train exits a tunnel, emergence in the context of
> evolving systems has a different meaning.

But you didn't say anything about evolving systems and emergence. You said:

"So tell me then how the concept of emergence is related to any specific object?"

The specific object is, in the example, the train. Trains suddenly emerge from tunnels all the time.

>
> A train emerges from the interaction between it's parts
> not from any one of its parts.
>

In the example the train emerged from the tunnel.

You should be more specific; no one can read your mind.

Ray

[snip....]

[Ray Martinez]

When I have the time.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 3:43:07 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 7:28:08 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
> > On 5/29/2015 7:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Replies owed to Roger Shrubber and John Harshman take more time than I have. So these won't happen until Monday.
>
> > > On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 4:13:13 PM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
> > >> On 5/28/2015 5:43 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So tell me then how the concept of emergence
> > >> is related to any specific object?
> > >
> > > Example: The train, as expected, suddenly emerged from the tunnel.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > A train exits a tunnel, emergence in the context of
> > evolving systems has a different meaning.
>
> But you didn't say anything about evolving systems and emergence. You said:
>
> "So tell me then how the concept of emergence is related to any specific object?"
>
> The specific object is, in the example, the train. Trains suddenly emerge from tunnels all the time.
>

So the concept of "emergence" is a true claim about reality.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/30/15 3:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 3:03:13 PM UTC-7, Jimbo wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface [and] supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>>
>> table (n.)
>> late 12c., "board, slab, plate," from Old French table "board,
>> square panel, plank; writing table; picture; food, fare" (11c.), and
>> late Old English tabele "writing tablet, gaming table," from Germanic
>> *tabal (cognates: Dutch tafel, Danish tavle, Old High German zabel
>> "board, plank," German Tafel). Both the French and Germanic words are
>> from Latin tabula "a board, plank; writing table; list, schedule;
>> picture, painted panel," originally "small flat slab or piece" usually
>> for inscriptions or for games (source also of Spanish tabla, Italian
>> tavola), of uncertain origin, related to Umbrian tafle "on the board."
>> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=table
>>
>> The concept of _table_ developed over time. Languages *evolve."
>>
>>
>>> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>>
>> Do cheetahs count?
>
> Yes, of course.

What about ceramic cats?

>
>> They lack retractable claws. How about civet cats?
>> And ferrets are slinky, lazy, nocturnal predators just like your
>> family feline. Just what sort of claim is this know-it-all word 'cat'
>> trying to make?
>
> I didn't coin said word.

No, you just write it.

> All I'm saying is that the concept, as explained, exists.

No one doubts that concepts exist. They aren't, however, the same as
the physical objects.

>
>>
>>> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>>
>> Well, I hope you won't think I'm being rude to mention this, but
>> you've been given generous opportunities to say what kind of claim of
>> existence you think inventors are making when they develop in their
>> minds concepts for devices and processes that don't yet exist. Why
>> have you refused these opportunities to explain your thinking on this
>> matter?
>
> I would say that most inventions originate from ideas obtained from reality.

On what basis?

> Whatever the case the point is: until the thing exists the idea or concept is a false claim about reality.

Concepts are not claims about reality, Ray.

>
>>
>>> So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>>
>> 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
>> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
>> All mimsy were the borogoves,
>> And the mome raths outgrabe.'
>>
>> Do you recognize the nouns in this passage? What kind of claims are
>> they making?
>
> I don't understand the passage.

Mores the pity. You've missed out on some important English literature.

The point is that nouns don't make claims.

>
>>
>>> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
>>
>> Oh, I think the evidence is pretty strong that the concept of
>> evolution exists in nature. It is known to have pounced upon a number
>> of individuals at various points in history. Even more fearful... The
>> damn thing appears to have evolved over time! It has grown larger,
>> more subtle and more accurate in its ability to predict events.
>> There's no point in denying its existence, Ray. It's out there -
>> lurking.
>>
>>>
>>> Ray
>
> Appearance of design in nature falsifies.

So you keep repeating without any reason, or thought. The appearance
of design can be produced by things other than intelligent beings.
That fact causes your assertion above to crumble.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

I.e. Ray is still running away, and hopes everyone will forget before he
comes back.

DJT

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 7:28:08 AM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
>> On 5/29/2015 7:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Replies owed to Roger Shrubber and John Harshman take more time than
> I have. So these won't happen until Monday.

It shouldn't take much time at all.
All you have to do is to apply your own rules self-consistently.
You note that "tables" is a broad category, intentionally kept
broad as is (at least sometimes) an essential aspect of an
abstract concept. Thus, examples of tables that have 4 legs, and
in fact many such examples do not support a proscriptive definition
of tables that eliminates things without 4 legs.

All you have to do is to apply that to the concept of a concept.
As by your own admission, not all concepts exist for the purpose
of establishing the existence of what the concept references,
it's clear you manufactured a conflict. The conflict is directly
analogous to specifying that a table must have 4 legs.
You claim a concept is created to establish the existence of that
which the concept reference, except when context indicates otherwise.
So a table has 4 legs, except when it doesn't? Ha.
You've got to do better than that. Examples of tables that have 4 legs,
or concepts that are intended to establish a category whose existence
can be discussed don't help either case.

Look up the word proscribe. It basically means to forbid. A proscriptive
definition works by identifying what does not belong to that being
defined. For example, defining a table to have 4 legs would be
proscriptive against 5 legged tables.

Your problem is that you attempt a "must be this and only this"
definition that you attempt to support by showing examples where
your definition works, but ignoring where your definition does
not work. That falls back on the "and only this" part.

Look, you tried to define concept but you failed. Admit it. Let
it go. Inventors create lots of failures. Scientists test lots of
hypotheses that fail. The key is to admit when something fails.
And your definition of concept fails because it is self-contradictory.
Concepts clearly have more purposes than to establish existence.
You violate a part of your own definition when you attempt to narrow
the concept of concept to be limited to just the purpose of establishing
existence of whatever the concept refers to. Some concepts have 4 legs.
Not all concepts have 4 legs.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/30/15 3:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 1:48:10 AM UTC-7, Joe Cummings wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 10:58:13 PM UTC+2, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>>>
>>> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>>>
>>> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>>>
>>> So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>>>
>>> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Ah, more foolery from Ray.
>>
>> I was under the impression that concepts were the material that the mind works with.
>>
>
> Yes, exactly correct.

Which means your assertion that concepts are defined as physical objects
is wrong.

>
>> To argue that the determinant of "concept" is existence is to talk gibberish.
>>
>
> Yet just above you recognized the material (= existence).

No, not in this case, Ray. "Material that the mind works with" does
not mean "it exists in the physical world". Just as "food for thought"
is not something one can eat.

>
>> Let's try a practical test:
>>
>> Here are two concepts,
>>
>> "The impossibility of the existence of life on other planets."
>>
>> "The possibilty of the existence of life on other planets."
>>
>> These are both acceptable concepts in the sense that they are legitimate subjects of ratiocination, and one can have various opinions about them.
>>
>> Would Ray say that they aren't concepts? Or will he (as I think he will) come up with some ad hoc use of another word to maintain his "definition?"
>>
>
> Both are concepts or claims about reality;

No, they are both mental constructs, not claims. "Life exists on other
planets" is a claim. The possibility of life existing on an other
planet is a mental construct, ie a concept. Can you see the difference?

> currently the upper and lower are unsupported or false concepts due to lack of positive evidence in support.

Neither are "false" concepts, Ray. Concepts themselves can't be true or
false, because they are abstract ideas. They exist on their own, as a
form of thought.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Concepts are not claims about reality, Ray. Concepts are ideas held
within human minds. They may, or may not match with reality, but the
concept itself exists within the minds.


DJT

[Jimbo]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 14:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 3:03:13 PM UTC-7, Jimbo wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface [and] supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>>
>> table (n.)
>> late 12c., "board, slab, plate," from Old French table "board,
>> square panel, plank; writing table; picture; food, fare" (11c.), and
>> late Old English tabele "writing tablet, gaming table," from Germanic
>> *tabal (cognates: Dutch tafel, Danish tavle, Old High German zabel
>> "board, plank," German Tafel). Both the French and Germanic words are
>> from Latin tabula "a board, plank; writing table; list, schedule;
>> picture, painted panel," originally "small flat slab or piece" usually
>> for inscriptions or for games (source also of Spanish tabla, Italian
>> tavola), of uncertain origin, related to Umbrian tafle "on the board."
>> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=table
>>
>> The concept of _table_ developed over time. Languages *evolve."
>>
>>
>> >The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>>
>> Do cheetahs count?
>
>Yes, of course.

So, retractable claws aren't a necessary characteristic of 'cat.'
Similarly, 'four legs' isn't a necessary characteristic of 'table.' If
someone gives you a board and says it is a table, is that person a
nut? It doesn't have four legs, or any legs at all, but that's where
the word 'table' came from. There was a time when people used boards
whenever they needed a flat surface to work on or place food.

Look up 'denotation' and 'connotation.' Both the denotation and
connotations of words in ordinary speech can change over time. For
example, you just used the word 'nut' to refer to a person with odd
ideas. That connotation evidently didn't exist before the 20th
century.

>> They lack retractable claws. How about civet cats?
>> And ferrets are slinky, lazy, nocturnal predators just like your
>> family feline. Just what sort of claim is this know-it-all word 'cat'
>> trying to make?
>
>I didn't coin said word. All I'm saying is that the concept, as explained, exists.

The concept exists, but not as you 'explained.' The word 'cat,' like
many other nouns, has a wide range of connotations in common
non-technical speech. So what? It has nothing to do with the question
of wether or not the preponderance of evidence supports the existence
of physical processes that biologists refer to as evolution. You seem
to think that biologists are evil magicians attempting to conjure
evolution into existence with word magic.

>> >The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>>
>> Well, I hope you won't think I'm being rude to mention this, but
>> you've been given generous opportunities to say what kind of claim of
>> existence you think inventors are making when they develop in their
>> minds concepts for devices and processes that don't yet exist. Why
>> have you refused these opportunities to explain your thinking on this
>> matter?
>
>I would say that most inventions originate from ideas obtained from reality. Whatever the case the point is: until the thing exists the idea or concept is a false claim about reality.

I guess that's why Einstein wrote that letter to Roosevelt saying
'Dear Mr. President, I would like to make a false claim about reality
concerning the possibility of an new and very powerful type of bomb."

>> >So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>>
>> 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
>> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
>> All mimsy were the borogoves,
>> And the mome raths outgrabe.'
>>
>> Do you recognize the nouns in this passage? What kind of claims are
>> they making?
>
>I don't understand the passage.

You should be able to figure out which words are nouns and which are
verbs simply by the way they are used in the sentence. It's like
saying, 'it was Christmas and the children did dance and sing in the
street.' It's useful to learn how words work in sentences, but useless
and wrong to think they are somehow magically connected to the things
they denotate or connotate.

>> >That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
>>
>> Oh, I think the evidence is pretty strong that the concept of
>> evolution exists in nature. It is known to have pounced upon a number
>> of individuals at various points in history. Even more fearful... The
>> damn thing appears to have evolved over time! It has grown larger,
>> more subtle and more accurate in its ability to predict events.
>> There's no point in denying its existence, Ray. It's out there -
>> lurking.

Did you understand what I was getting at here, Ray? The concept of
evolution developed over time. Variant forms of the concept occurred
to people such as Lamarck. Darwin developed a theory based on the
concept of natural selection, and now we have a concept that
incorporates population genetics and neutral theory. The concept has
changed as new evidence has emerged. That's the scientific approach to
acquisition and validation of knowledge. The theory that most
adequately explains the evidence is provisionally accepted. This is
vastly different from your own dabblings in word magic.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT), the following

>When I have the time.

So, never? IOW, the usual evasion? That's OK, since your
assertion has been refuted by a single example.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:56:27 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

>> When I have the time.

>I.e. Ray is still running away, and hopes everyone will forget before he
>comes back.

Most of us probably forget the specifics, but the general
trend sticks with us. And he almost certainly will refuse to
address my refutation of his assertion in the future while
continuing to make the same assertion ad nauseum. The simple
fact is that there is an ever-increasing number of terms for
which Ray has unique definitions - atheist, Christian,
science etc., and now "concept"; a bit like Bill. Trying to
argue against these constantly-changing lists is like trying
to nail Jell-O to a wall.

[Joe Cummings]

Our Ray has a really serious problem with words and their use. Does he really think that, for instance, "material" has only one meaning? I could just as easily - and considering Ray's problem, should - have said "Concepts were what the mind works with."

He has this interesting habit of using words to mean just what he wants them to mean at the opportune time.

How can we help him to an understanding of the word "concept?" Perhaps this may help, but I'm not too hopeful:

We have iron and the concept "iron." Acid will attack iron. Will it attack the concept "iron?"

He later brings in the new idea of a "false concept," but does he mean "false?" Evidently not, because after "said" false concept he claims that they are false because they lack evidence to support them.

I strongly urge Ray to get hold of a book about elementary logic and try his hardest to come to grips with the ssubject; Let me assure him that books on logic have been written by believers. So he need have no worries on that score.

I think there is a need here to examine more closely the logical apparatus of our creationist friends.

Perhaps I'll have a stab at it soon.

Joe Cummings

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 2:33:11 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [FOR THE RECORD: BELOW IS A SLIGHTLY REVISED VERSION OF THE OPENING POST]
>

> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of different styles, vary in thickness, and made of various materials. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. Common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface supported by legs and the nut is refuted.

>
> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>

> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow or enable a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.

>
> So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>
> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
>

Note the fact that I'm working from the slightly revised edition seen above.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 3:38:12 PM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:

> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For
> > example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an
> > object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The

> > legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could

> > be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface

> > of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape.

> > The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting

> > legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said
> > tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a

> > flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>
> So you want to redefine the word concept, a word that has a lengthy
> historical definition with Latin roots. As presented before, concept
> derives from conseptus which is a noun form of the verb concipere
> which in English is to conceive. A concept is that which was conceived.

This says the word "concept" has only one valid narrow meaning (which is ridiculous).

>
> Now ideas/concept can be terms like table used to describe a set
> of like things but it is not necessarily the broadest possible
> group. We have a concept of coffee tables, or dining room tables,
> or end tables. So clearly, your attempted definition is failing
> in that it claims "broadest possible" when that is not the case
> for concepts. That type of concept is a description for the members
> of a set, such a the set tables.

You've introduced three new concepts: (1) "coffee tables," (2) "dining room tables," and "end tables." Each of these concepts are quite valid. All three are recognizable, known to exist. There are many different coffee tables, dining room tables, and end tables. Yet each of the three are known to match the concept of table as explained in the revised OP. So the set of three support the general concept: object with flat surface supported by legs. Moreover I would also say that each of these concepts existed first THEN the phrase by which each concept is known came into wide use: coffee, dining room, end.

As to your point: "Now ideas/concept can be terms like table used to describe a set of like things but it is not necessarily the broadest possible group" (RS).

In this sentence "ideas/concept" is referred to as "terms" which in turn refers to "like things." Everything written before the word "but" is what I've been saying as well, and everything written after the word "but" is contradicted by the examples of like things. In other words your attempt to invalidate my definition of "concept" is not only asserted but shown as error in the preceding paragraph.

Ray

[snip....for now]

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 3:38:12 PM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For
> > example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an
> > object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The
> > legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could
> > be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface
> > of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape.
> > The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting
> > legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said
> > tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a
> > flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>
> So you want to redefine the word concept, a word that has a lengthy
> historical definition with Latin roots. As presented before, concept
> derives from conseptus which is a noun form of the verb concipere
> which in English is to conceive. A concept is that which was conceived.
>

> Now ideas/concept can be terms like table used to describe a set
> of like things but it is not necessarily the broadest possible
> group. We have a concept of coffee tables, or dining room tables,
> or end tables. So clearly, your attempted definition is failing
> in that it claims "broadest possible" when that is not the case
> for concepts. That type of concept is a description for the members
> of a set, such a the set tables.
>

Your last sentence (seen above), even though it wasn't intended, says my definition is valid.

> However, we have a long established tradition of distinguishing
> between the set and members of the set.

A set of like things is the concept. My definition is valid. To say the concept or idea doesn't refer to the set is contradicted by the fact that the like things exist.

> You family is a set but
> individual family members are distinct from the collective.

While they could, not all members in the set resemble one another.

> An individual table is distinct from a collection of all tables.

Yes.

>
> So you definition fails to correspond with the way we have used
> the word concept, with the root origins of the word, and a useful
> distinction.

Whether your point is true or not is debate-able. But the relevant point is that my definition and the example/explanation provided match or correspond.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/9NdxvqrIMWU/E2P18YYSaaIJ

"A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of different styles, vary in thickness, and made of various materials. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. Common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table.""

>
> Further, as historically used, concepts describe ideas independently
> of there existing concrete objects.

In the context of epistemology and science, the context of topic and both OPs, just the opposite is true. To say scholars are referring to non-existing like things as opposed to existing like things, is absurd. Your view assumes scholars are detached from reality; my view assumes the exact opposite. Of course, as indicated in the OPs, a context of existence is presupposed unless indicated otherwise.

> It has been more generic simply
> covering all things that are thought of. If you can conceive of
> an idea, that idea is a concept. You apparently want to discard
> this tradition meaning, and this natural meaning as the noun follows
> from the verb.

Here you essentially repeat your deeply flawed understanding. Nouns, in our context, presuppose a claim of existence.

>
> Why? Why should we all agree to change the meaning of "concept" to
> accommodate you.

You can't accept the fact that you have misunderstood the main claim of concepts.

> Doing so would mean we would need to come up with
> a new word to mean what concept used to mean. And whatever this new
> word was, it would not be a natural meaning like concept, from conceive
> derived from conceptus from concipere.
>
> Further, there is an extensive body of English literature that uses
> the word concept in a manner very different from your suggested
> meaning. That historical meaning has of course been documented
> by professional lexicographers and investigated by etymologists.
> It absolutely conflicts with your suggestion, especially in that
> it is not limited in the way that you limit "concept".

>
> > The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
> > mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
> > Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't
> > exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
> >

> > The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most

> > generous opportunity to support existence.
>

> This is clearly false. You want to limit the purpose of concept sensu
> Ray to be all about claims of existence. Others have not so limited
> it.

Your view disallows concepts as presupposing a claim of existence; my view does the exact opposite; yet you describe the latter as "limiting" and the former as "not limiting" (= inverse logic).


> Near as I can tell, nobody but you want to so limit it. You have
> even acknowledged exceptions to your assertion about the purpose
> of concepts. Nobody denies that concepts can be employed in manners
> that make claims of instantiation. Burkard covered this well with
> cites to textbooks.
>

This asserts exceptions as the rule when in fact the rule of presupposing existence is not harmed by exceptions (context that indicates otherwise).

> What would it take to get you to reassess your position?

Arguments that show any foundational errors in the OPs.

My definition has perfect correspondence with the examples/explanation.

Ray

>
>
> > So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise,
> > presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns
> > are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>

> No they don't as your "unless indicated otherwise" foreshadows.
> But it's more than that. Some usages of concepts are clearly
> conjectural. So the "indication" is just usage.
>
> As usage dictates if a claim of existence is being made, there
> is no need to complicate the definition of a concept with your
> assertion about claims of existence. When it's apparent from
> usage, there's a claim of existence. When it's not, there isn't one.

>
> > That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the
> > concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism
> > thrives.
>

> And that's just tossing a non sequitur onto obtuse attempts
> to redefine words. Let's stick with the attempt to change the
> historic definition of "concept".

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 3:38:12 PM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

>
>
> > So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise,
> > presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns
> > are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>
> No they don't as your "unless indicated otherwise" foreshadows.
> But it's more than that. Some usages of concepts are clearly
> conjectural. So the "indication" is just usage.
>
> As usage dictates if a claim of existence is being made, there
> is no need to complicate the definition of a concept with your
> assertion about claims of existence. When it's apparent from
> usage, there's a claim of existence. When it's not, there isn't one.

Which is what I said. Too bad I had to say it because you and Burk quickly argued stated exceptions as somehow harming my claims.

>
> > That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the
> > concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism
> > thrives.
>
> And that's just tossing a non sequitur onto obtuse attempts
> to redefine words. Let's stick with the attempt to change the
> historic definition of "concept".

According to you when an evolution scholar writes about the concept of evolution he or she does not intend as presupposing existence in nature. Yet the concept of "descent with modification" has been accepted by a majority of naturalists as existing in nature since 1872.

The fact of the matter is that your understanding is COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS. As if any evolution scholar is talking about a non-existent concept is something that Evolutionists would accuse of Creationists of misrepresenting!

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6:28:13 PM UTC-7, Dale wrote:

> On 05/28/2015 03:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table."
>

> that might not be the "concept" of a table but an "instantiation" of a table

Since objects with flat surfaces and supporting legs exist the concept and thing are one-in-the-same. Nobody can say or write "concept of table" and not think of the recognizable thing.

>
> I am quite interested in the difference between a "concept" and an
> "instantiation"
>

A false concept lacks instantiation; a true concept does not.

> if you are a materialist you might say
>
> the body is material
> the brain is material
> things in the brain are material
> concepts are in the brain
> concepts are material
>
> but how do concepts differ from instantiations?

Concepts (wide variance of an alleged thing) exist to provide a claimant with the most generous opportunity to support instantiation.

>
> is a concept something that is construction from sensation of an
> instantiation?

Eliminate the ambiguous "from sensation" and the answer is yes. As a general rule like things exist first then the terms by which we know them.

>
> take vision for a sensual example
>
> is vision real-time?
>
> is the visual concept the same material thing in the brain as the
> instantiation visualized? there are cases where reality is not
> necessarily normally perceived
>
> how does one sense interact with the other, and what exactly is a final
> concept? in fact what is an instantiation? or is it all concepts in a
> pantheistic mind of God(s) that we share?
>
> --
> Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:28:11 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>

> >A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>

> OK, Ray, let's test that claim.

Since tables, as described, exist, the claim is true.

> As only one example of a
> potential myriad, I have in my mind the concept of an
> interstellar spacecraft which can travel at multiples of c
> without violating Special Relativity via an
> as-yet-undiscovered loophole in SR. The fairly detailed
> concept thus exists.

Unless any variance of the alleged thing exists the concept, as described, is a false claim about reality.

>
> Now, to validate your assertion, please show me such a
> spacecraft.

I didn't say anything about interstellar spacecraft except that the alleged thing, any variance, doesn't exist. So the concept is a false claim about reality.

>
> For another example of a concept unrelated to anything in
> actual existence, check out:
>
> http://cooleville.com/haynes-star-trek-manual/
>
> As I noted, there are a myriad examples of such concepts
> unrelated to reality.
>

Our context is topic, epistemology, and science (see the OP).

> >The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
> >

> >The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>
> As noted above, a concept is a mental structure, which need
> not conform to anything in reality.
>

Then it's a false claim about reality. That's the point concerning the concept of evolution: it only "exists" in the minds of Evolutionists, not objective reality.

> >So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>

> Nope. If you continue to disagree show me that spacecraft.

You brought it up, not me. I said the concept is false (doesn't exist in reality). Obviously said spacecraft belongs to science fiction, not science.

>
> >That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
>

> I suspect it thrives because of emotional denial, plus
> misunderstanding of both science and religion. But that's
> only my concept...

> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

Ray

[broger...@gmail.com]

Ray, you have a very idiosyncratic vocabulary. You use words like objective, subjective, observation, and logical in ways very different from most people. But that's fine; those of us who have read your stuff for a while have figured out your private definitions of those words.

Now for "concept." Basically you want to use "concept" to mean "something you can think of that actually exists." And you want to exclude things that you can think of that don't exist. Most people use "concept" to include things you can think of regardless of whether they actually exist, but it doesn't matter. All you need is an additional word to cover the case of thing you can think of but which don't exist. And you already have a good word for that,... "delusion." So where other people might talk about the "concept of a unicorn" or the "concept of a faster than light spaceship," all you need do is say "the delusion of a unicorn," or "the delusion of a faster than light spaceship." Or, in the case dearest to your heart, "the delusion of evolution."

You'll still be using words differently than most people, but at least a simple translation will be possible.

[Roger Shrubber]

No it doesn't, because it doesn't cover your whole definition.
For example, a set can be the set of imaginary numbers. Or it can
be the set of characters in The Lord of the Rings. The definition
of a set is not restricted to "things we are attempting to make
existence claims about". You attempt to restrict _concept_ based
on one narrow teleological purpose that you assert is universal.
Except not everyone shares your teleological purpose. And tables
are largely unmoved by our purpose, maybe by our wife's purposes
they get moved but that's another story.

>> However, we have a long established tradition of distinguishing
>> between the set and members of the set.
>
> A set of like things is the concept. My definition is valid. To say
> the concept or idea doesn't refer to the set is contradicted by the
> fact that the like things exist.

It's only part of your definition.

>> You family is a set but individual family members are distinct from
>> the collective.
>
> While they could, not all members in the set resemble one another.

Sets are not just defined by looks.

>> An individual table is distinct from a collection of all tables.

> Yes.

>> So you definition fails to correspond with the way we have used the
>> word concept, with the root origins of the word, and a useful
>> distinction.
>
> Whether your point is true or not is debate-able. But the relevant
> point is that my definition and the example/explanation provided
> match or correspond.

Apparently not debatable by you. Specifically, you restrict concepts
to ideas about a class of existing things. This restriction is to
the exclusion of ideas that were not conceived of for that limited
purpose. Why? Why do you want to change the meaning of the word?

And when you say "widest allowable variation", I think your meaning is
sloppy. Concepts define things that belong, and things that don't
belong. You prescribe and you proscribe. Sometimes we want to do this
with great exactitude, and often struggle to do so. But sometimes
we specifically try to leave in a fuzzy boundary when we acknowledge
that things are not so black and white.

When you define a set, it is like drawing a circle to claim
that there are things inside the circle, and things outside the circle.
Both parts of that action matter. Definitions are like that. Concepts
are sometimes like that. You can draw your metaphorical circle
around a set of characteristics that define a table. Now tell me,
is a chair a table?

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/9NdxvqrIMWU/E2P18YYSaaIJ
>
> "A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined
> as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting
> legs. The legs could be short or long and of different styles, vary
> in thickness, and made of various materials. The surface of a table
> could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. Common
> denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs;
> hence the "concept of table.""

So a chair has a flat surface and 4 supporting legs. Is it a table?
By the widest possible interpretation of a table, it would seem to
be, but it isn't, it's a chair. At least to most people it is a chair.
So maybe there's something missing from your attempt to define
a concept, including from your attempt to define the concept of
a table.

>> Further, as historically used, concepts describe ideas
>> independently of there existing concrete objects.

> In the context of epistemology and science, the context of topic and
> both OPs, just the opposite is true. To say scholars are referring to
> non-existing like things as opposed to existing like things, is
> absurd. Your view assumes scholars are detached from reality; my view
> assumes the exact opposite. Of course, as indicated in the OPs, a
> context of existence is presupposed unless indicated otherwise.

You're wrong Ray. Concepts are ideas. We, including scientists
and epistemologists, have ideas for many reasons, and we like
to communicate this ideas - these concepts. We have never limited
ourselves to ideas about things that exist. In physics, we have
ideas about weightless ropes and frictionless pulleys. We know
that these things cannot exist. They play a part in just about
every first year physics course. We also discuss "imaginary forces".
I won't bother trying to explain why but the fact is, we do so.

Ray finds this absurd but then I expect that Ray has never taken
a class in physics. So Ray's personal testimony about what he
finds absurd is not well informed, is it?

Physicists are not therefore detached from reality. They
sometimes bypass complications of reality to help them understand
the world. Sometimes they simplify the 3D world into a 2D world
because they can make faster calculations when modeling how
things behave. The "things" in their 2D world don't exist as
anything but concepts. They know they don't. They can calculate
information about how such things would behave. We even have our
own local celebrity who stops by now and then who is working
on 2D models of quantum gravity. Why? Because the math is easier
in 2D, you can model it quicker, but you still know how to
convert your model to 3D if it works out.

Concepts are tools we use. They are not limited to the pedestrian
purposes you have imagined for them.

>> It has been more generic simply covering all things that are
>> thought of. If you can conceive of an idea, that idea is a concept.
>> You apparently want to discard this tradition meaning, and this
>> natural meaning as the noun follows from the verb.
>
> Here you essentially repeat your deeply flawed understanding. Nouns,
> in our context, presuppose a claim of existence.

Only to your very limited view of things. And it's a very limited
view.

It is analogous to someone who had only ever hear or thought of tables
with 4 legs wanting to define tables to have exactly 4 legs. Ray can
walk up to them and tell them that they have over-restricted their
concept but they tell Ray he's nuts, tables have 4 legs. Ray tells
them nope, you can have more or you can have less but that person
says nonsense, everybody knows tables have 4 legs, here, I'll show you
a table with 4 legs. Ray shows them a table with a single pedestal
leg with a wide base. What does that person say?

Except, in this case, I'm telling Ray that scientists don't restrict
concepts to being things that exist. I've provided you a few examples
of concepts scientists use that scientists definitely do not claim
to exist as anything other than as concepts (e.g. massless ropes,
frictionless pulleys). Here's a page from an introduction to physics text.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=9YdGBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q=%22frictionless%20pulley%22&>

>> Why? Why should we all agree to change the meaning of "concept" to
>> accommodate you.
>
> You can't accept the fact that you have misunderstood the main claim
> of concepts.

You refuse to acknowledge that you are artificially limiting the
idea of what a concept is, and that you have artificially constructed
this claim that ideas must make claims about existence. You persist
in this claim despite facts presented to you that concepts are not
limited to claims of existence.

"Consider a two weights connected by a massless rope stretched over
a frictionless pulley." You will find such a sentence in physics
books. To ease you into this, the "massless rope" and "frictionless
pulley" are the concepts you need to think about. They are imaginary
things. They are iconic imaginary things that every physics student
learns about, even high school students who take physics. Nobody
claims they exist in reality. They exist in the world of ideas.
They are ideas that help teach other ideas that do apply to reality,
lest you think it's all games.

Your assertion that all concepts are claims of existence is just
plain flat out wrong. Is it just your lack of imagination that
makes you repeat this claim? Or is it your lack of experience with
science? With conceptual thinking?

Whatever the reason, stop limiting yourself. The rest of us are
not bound by your limits. We have not been bound by your limits.
We don't intend to stop leveraging the world of ideas unlimited
by your pedestrian assertion that all concepts must be claims
about a simplistic objective reality. Because we can use these
more abstract ideas to explore simpler systems, more complex systems,
alternative systems. We can learn about how purely conceptual things
behave in our model, imaginary, idealized worlds. And we can use
those behaviors to test how things work in our tangible world.
And scientists do that. All the time, even if Ray doesn't understand.

>> Doing so would mean we would need to come up with a new word to
>> mean what concept used to mean. And whatever this new word was, it
>> would not be a natural meaning like concept, from conceive derived
>> from conceptus from concipere.
>>
>> Further, there is an extensive body of English literature that
>> uses the word concept in a manner very different from your
>> suggested meaning. That historical meaning has of course been
>> documented by professional lexicographers and investigated by
>> etymologists. It absolutely conflicts with your suggestion,
>> especially in that it is not limited in the way that you limit
>> "concept".
>>
>>> The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
>>> mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
>>> Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats
>>> don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is
>>> refuted.
>>>
>>> The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the
>>> most generous opportunity to support existence.
>>
>> This is clearly false. You want to limit the purpose of concept
>> sensu Ray to be all about claims of existence. Others have not so
>> limited it.
>
> Your view disallows concepts as presupposing a claim of existence; my
> view does the exact opposite; yet you describe the latter as
> "limiting" and the former as "not limiting" (= inverse logic).

I don't exclude the possibility for concepts to be, sometimes, intended
to be created for the purpose of testing claims of existence, but I
don't limit concepts to that context. You want to.
So your view is clearly limited compared to mine.

Also, you make a category error.
You are requiring a combining of the "what" of a concept with one
specific "why" of a concept. It is not necessary to do so.

The "what" of a table I can observe in terms of flat surface and legs.
The why is less obvious. Is the why 'so I can put things on it'? 'so
we can sit down and eat together'? 'because it looks nice and fills
the room for the picture I'm painting'?

Those 'why' questions probably don't belong as part of the concept
of a table because the physical table does not change just because
my purpose changes. The purpose of a table does not change anything
innate to the table.

And similarly, the concept of a table does not change if I'm
attempting to claim something about one that exists or that is
imaginary. King Arthur's round table is the same conceptually
whether or not you or I think the legend of King Arthur is based
on fact or fiction. It's conceptually the same (has legs, has a flat
top, is round) whether or not we are claiming it exists.

Further, you are restricting all concepts to one particular "why"
and that is "to test a claim of existence". You'll not find that as
part of any definition of "concept". It's just what you add. People
can have other "why" reasons for invoking the concept of table
but the word remains the same and the idea invoked in people's
mind is the same.

The "why" of table is disjoint from the "what" of a table in
most cases.

Now, it is possible to invoke concepts based on teleological
purposes. But these are just one of many types of concepts,
because teleological thinking is just one way of conceiving
ideas. The lesson, again, is that concepts are not limited
to the very very narrow limitations you want to place on them.
They are a much wider category based just on the fact that
they were thought of.

Now here's a tricky part that could confuse people.

The concept of what a concept is, in the generic sense, is thus
very broad. Lots of very different things can be concepts.
Some concepts are free from teleological limitations. Others
have teleological constraints. Such constraints are specific
to individual concepts that were specifically conceived that
way as part of their being. A 'chair for sitting on' has a
constraint of purpose built into it. It allows one to turn a
box into a chair by the act of intending it to be one.
That is a particular type of concept of a chair. Other concepts
of a chair are not formulated by teleological purpose so
a box remains a box even if you intend to sit on it, and even
if you do sit on it.

Such teleological definitions are clearly possible, but are
generally problematic because communication of intent or purpose
is less robust than communication of other features. Also,
purpose or intent is not intrinsic to the "chair". This is a
problem with all teleologically inspired definitions. It
is part of the problem you introduce by trying to restrict
all concepts to the teleological purpose of claims of existence.

>> Near as I can tell, nobody but you want to so limit it. You have
>> even acknowledged exceptions to your assertion about the purpose of
>> concepts. Nobody denies that concepts can be employed in manners
>> that make claims of instantiation. Burkard covered this well with
>> cites to textbooks.
>>
>
> This asserts exceptions as the rule when in fact the rule of
> presupposing existence is not harmed by exceptions (context that
> indicates otherwise).

That's not really a coherent sentence.
What does "This asserts exceptions as the rule" mean?

You make a claim about the reason we invent concepts. We
document many examples where your claim is false. Your
rule is thus unreliable. This does not mean that your
rule is always wrong, it means that your rule cannot be
relied on. If you defined a table to have 4 legs and we
showed you exceptions where a table had 3 or 6 legs,
those exceptions would show that your definition was flawed.
Your definition remains flawed despite there existing tables
with 4 legs. Our exceptions don't mean that no tables have
4 legs. You claim all concepts are composed to make claims
of existence. We show you exceptions to that claim.

What you need to acknowledge, Ray, is that you need
context to admit your claim about 'claims of existence'.
It is not a default.

>> What would it take to get you to reassess your position?
>
> Arguments that show any foundational errors in the OPs.
>
> My definition has perfect correspondence with the
> examples/explanation.

We've supplied many examples and explanations about why
your view is hopelessly narrow and restrictive, not historically
accurate, and problematic because of the bizarre teleological
constraint you introduce.

You assert a default context that does not hold up. You
want to claim you are right and any exceptions are special
cases that have specific contextual clues when in fact it
is the opposite. Your case is the special exception that
requires explicit contextual clues.

Concepts are ideas. It's that simple. There are lots of
different kinds of concepts. There are lots of reasons
and uses for concepts. Concepts are not limited to claims
of existence, or claims about reality. Some concepts can
be used to make claims about reality or existence. Such
claims ought to be explicit about being such.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 19:23:45 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:28:11 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>>
>> OK, Ray, let's test that claim.
>
>Since tables, as described, exist, the claim is true.

You really have a problem with comprehension, don't you? No
one said that one cannot have a concept of an existing
physical object; the only issue is whether concepts are
limited to such objects.

>> As only one example of a
>> potential myriad, I have in my mind the concept of an
>> interstellar spacecraft which can travel at multiples of c
>> without violating Special Relativity via an
>> as-yet-undiscovered loophole in SR. The fairly detailed
>> concept thus exists.
>
>Unless any variance of the alleged thing exists the concept, as described, is a false claim about reality.

....which is irrelevant, since a concept is not a "claim
about reality. That's *your* assertion, that it is
*necessarily* such a claim, and you are wrong.

>> Now, to validate your assertion, please show me such a
>> spacecraft.
>
>I didn't say anything about interstellar spacecraft except that the alleged thing, any variance, doesn't exist. So the concept is a false claim about reality.

You really don't understand, do you?

>> For another example of a concept unrelated to anything in
>> actual existence, check out:
>>
>> http://cooleville.com/haynes-star-trek-manual/
>>
>> As I noted, there are a myriad examples of such concepts
>> unrelated to reality.
>>
>
>Our context is topic, epistemology, and science (see the OP).

No, our current subject is the nature of "concept", and your
assertion that a concept *must* be about something real.
That assertion is mistaken.

>> >The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
>> >
>> >The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>>
>> As noted above, a concept is a mental structure, which need
>> not conform to anything in reality.

>Then it's a false claim about reality.

Since concepts aren't "claims" about anything beyond "Hey,
here's a thought!", they aren't false claims. They are
*true* claims about their content, but that content need not
be about anything real. Like the concept of deities. You
have a very...unique...concept of the meanings of quite a
few words; and like many concepts, that one doesn't reflect
reality, but only the content of your mind.

> That's the point concerning the concept of evolution: it only "exists" in the minds of Evolutionists, not objective reality.

Nope; sorry. The evidence, which is *not* a concept alone,
says that evolution is an ongoing process, including
speciation, which has been observed in real time, both in
nature and in the lab. The concept arose from the
observations, not vice versa.

>> >So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>>
>> Nope. If you continue to disagree show me that spacecraft.
>
>You brought it up, not me.

Of course, since it shows your concept of "concept" is
wrong. Why else would you imagine I offered it?

> I said the concept is false (doesn't exist in reality). Obviously said spacecraft belongs to science fiction, not science.

And yet I still have the concept in my mind, which proves
that your idea of "concept" is wrong; concepts need not be
about anything real. Or even possible.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:49:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by broger...@gmail.com:

>Ray, you have a very idiosyncratic vocabulary. You use words like objective, subjective, observation, and logical in ways very different from most people. But that's fine; those of us who have read your stuff for a while have figured out your private definitions of those words.
>
>Now for "concept." Basically you want to use "concept" to mean "something you can think of that actually exists." And you want to exclude things that you can think of that don't exist. Most people use "concept" to include things you can think of regardless of whether they actually exist, but it doesn't matter. All you need is an additional word to cover the case of thing you can think of but which don't exist. And you already have a good word for that,... "delusion." So where other people might talk about the "concept of a unicorn" or the "concept of a faster than light spaceship," all you need do is say "the delusion of a unicorn," or "the delusion of a faster than light spaceship." Or, in the case dearest to your heart, "the delusion of evolution."
>
>You'll still be using words differently than most people, but at least a simple translation will be possible.

More succinct than my answer, and covers the territory as
well. Thanks.

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 6:33:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/29/15, 4:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> >> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
> >>

> >> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.
> >
> > That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept entails and actually is.
>
> By "almost nobody" I meant almost nobody in the world, not just on this
> news group. Everybody does it wrong except Ray.
>

Fact: The definition provided corresponds perfectly with the examples/explanation.

> > The only requirement is a definition. And said definition is
> > succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**
>
> You can always redefine any word to mean whatever you like. But you
> can't expect others to follow along.
>

But it's not a re-definition. It's a valid definition used by scholars far and wide.

> >>> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined
> >>> as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting
> >>> legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and
> >>> they could be made of different materials and of different styles.
> >>> The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any
> >>> other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface
> >>> and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came
> >>> along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any
> >>> object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is
> >>> refuted.
> >>

> >> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other, but
> >> you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just said that
> >> the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a concept isn't an
> >> object, so can't be defined as one. You might mean that a table is
> >> defined as an object, but that's not what you said.
> >
> > What did I say? Obviously I know exactly what I said. I defined
> > concept then gave two examples that fit the definition precisely.
> > Your comments above do not reflect any obligatory accuracy of what I
> > said.
>
> "Any obligatory accuracy"?

Yes, you're obligated to quote and/or represent what I said in the OPs accurately. You didn't.

> You may know what you said, but I don't think
> you understand how any other person would understand what you said.
> Again, you defined a concept as an object. Do you see that?

Yes, that's the point! Our context is things that allegedly exist (nouns), epistemology, and science. When I learned the epistemology that I'm advocating my source stated context only once: existence. So intelligent persons understand immediately that science fiction, or original ideas that may not exist, aren't being discussed or addressed per se. Yet we have a room full of Evolutionists who are bogged down in misunderstanding this simple context: existence or reality. Moreover we have a room full of Evolutionists arguing that the phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't presuppose a claim of existence! Yet "descent with modification" has been accepted as existing in nature by a majority of naturalists/scientists since 1872. One could rightly say that if a Creationist had said that said phrase didn't presuppose existence Evolutionists would promptly accuse the Creationist of misunderstanding!

That said, concepts/nouns presuppose a claim of existence. Concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.

When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc. The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the thing comes first then the word by which it is known. Try and tell a child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a picture? The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the child will immediately recognize the object for what it is. IF you were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation) was recognized.

Ray

[snip for now....]

[John Harshman]

On 6/3/15, 12:34 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 6:33:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/29/15, 4:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>>>>
>>>> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.
>>>
>>> That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept entails and actually is.
>>
>> By "almost nobody" I meant almost nobody in the world, not just on this
>> news group. Everybody does it wrong except Ray.
>>
>
> Fact: The definition provided corresponds perfectly with the examples/explanation.

Facts: 1) No, it does not and 2) just because your personal definition
fits your examples doesn't make it acceptable to others.

>>> The only requirement is a definition. And said definition is
>>> succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**
>>
>> You can always redefine any word to mean whatever you like. But you
>> can't expect others to follow along.
>
> But it's not a re-definition. It's a valid definition used by scholars far and wide.

Possibly, if by "scholars" you mean "disciples of Ayn Rand". Look:
another personal definition!

>>>>> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined
>>>>> as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting
>>>>> legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and
>>>>> they could be made of different materials and of different styles.
>>>>> The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any
>>>>> other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface
>>>>> and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came
>>>>> along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any
>>>>> object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is
>>>>> refuted.
>>>>
>>>> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other, but
>>>> you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just said that
>>>> the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a concept isn't an
>>>> object, so can't be defined as one. You might mean that a table is
>>>> defined as an object, but that's not what you said.
>>>
>>> What did I say? Obviously I know exactly what I said. I defined
>>> concept then gave two examples that fit the definition precisely.
>>> Your comments above do not reflect any obligatory accuracy of what I
>>> said.
>>
>> "Any obligatory accuracy"?
>
> Yes, you're obligated to quote and/or represent what I said in the OPs accurately. You didn't.

I wasn't quoting. I was paraphrasing. Here's a quote, stripping out
irrelevancies: "The concept of a table...is defined as an object...".
Did you or did you not say that? Did you or did you not mean that?

>> You may know what you said, but I don't think
>> you understand how any other person would understand what you said.
>> Again, you defined a concept as an object. Do you see that?
>
> Yes, that's the point! Our context is things that allegedly exist
> (nouns), epistemology, and science.

No, that's your attempt to define the context so as to make you right by
definition. Nouns are not "things that allegedly exist". Nouns do exist,
and they point to things that may or may not allegedly exist.

> When I learned the epistemology
> that I'm advocating my source stated context only once: existence. So
> intelligent persons understand immediately that science fiction, or
> original ideas that may not exist, aren't being discussed or
> addressed per se. Yet we have a room full of Evolutionists who are
> bogged down in misunderstanding this simple context: existence or
> reality. Moreover we have a room full of Evolutionists arguing that
> the phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't presuppose a claim of
> existence! Yet "descent with modification" has been accepted as
> existing in nature by a majority of naturalists/scientists since
> 1872. One could rightly say that if a Creationist had said that said
> phrase didn't presuppose existence Evolutionists would promptly
> accuse the Creationist of misunderstanding!

Again, you understand nothing. The phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't
imply that evolution exists. We have other reasons to suppose that
evolution exists, but the fact that there's a concept isn't one of those
reasons.

You last sentence also is untrue.

> That said, concepts/nouns presuppose a claim of existence. Concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.

You can repeat those claims all you like, but repetition doesn't make
them true.

> When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using
> pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc.
> The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the
> thing comes first then the word by which it is known. Try and tell a
> child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a
> picture? The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire
> place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the
> child will immediately recognize the object for what it is. IF you
> were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a
> power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child
> would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation)
> was recognized.

So much confusion, so little time. A picture isn't a claim of existence
either. The fact that you can have a picture of something doesn't make
that thing real. The fact that you learn lots of words from pictures
doesn't mean the things in the pictures are real or that concepts are
things. None of that paragraph is in any way relevant.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/3/15, 12:34 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 6:33:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/29/15, 4:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.
> >>>
> >>> That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept entails and actually is.
> >>
> >> By "almost nobody" I meant almost nobody in the world, not just on this
> >> news group. Everybody does it wrong except Ray.
> >>
> >
> > Fact: The definition provided corresponds perfectly with the examples/explanation.
>
> Facts: 1) No, it does not and 2) just because your personal definition
> fits your examples doesn't make it acceptable to others.

The only thing required by a thesis, regarding definitions, is that any given definition match how it is used in said thesis. It's impossible for you not to know that. The fact that you're consumed with other than what I just said means the definition is sound.

>
> >>> The only requirement is a definition. And said definition is
> >>> succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**
> >>
> >> You can always redefine any word to mean whatever you like. But you
> >> can't expect others to follow along.
> >
> > But it's not a re-definition. It's a valid definition used by scholars far and wide.
>
> Possibly, if by "scholars" you mean "disciples of Ayn Rand". Look:
> another personal definition!

In other words you're ignorant of how scholars are known to define and use concepts!

>
> >>>>> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined
> >>>>> as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting
> >>>>> legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and
> >>>>> they could be made of different materials and of different styles.
> >>>>> The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any
> >>>>> other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface
> >>>>> and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came
> >>>>> along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any
> >>>>> object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is
> >>>>> refuted.
> >>>>
> >>>> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other, but
> >>>> you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just said that
> >>>> the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a concept isn't an
> >>>> object, so can't be defined as one. You might mean that a table is
> >>>> defined as an object, but that's not what you said.
> >>>
> >>> What did I say? Obviously I know exactly what I said. I defined
> >>> concept then gave two examples that fit the definition precisely.
> >>> Your comments above do not reflect any obligatory accuracy of what I
> >>> said.
> >>
> >> "Any obligatory accuracy"?
> >
> > Yes, you're obligated to quote and/or represent what I said in the OPs accurately. You didn't.
>
> I wasn't quoting. I was paraphrasing. Here's a quote, stripping out
> irrelevancies: "The concept of a table...is defined as an object...".
> Did you or did you not say that? Did you or did you not mean that?

Not quite. I actually said widest allowable variation of an alleged object or thing.

>
> >> You may know what you said, but I don't think
> >> you understand how any other person would understand what you said.
> >> Again, you defined a concept as an object. Do you see that?
> >
> > Yes, that's the point! Our context is things that allegedly exist
> > (nouns), epistemology, and science.
>
> No, that's your attempt to define the context so as to make you right by
> definition. Nouns are not "things that allegedly exist". Nouns do exist,
> and they point to things that may or may not allegedly exist.

Nothing said here is true. In non-fiction a worker needn't specify the exclusion of science fiction; nouns presuppose a claim of existence, which addresses your last two non-truth statements.

>
> > When I learned the epistemology
> > that I'm advocating my source stated context only once: existence. So
> > intelligent persons understand immediately that science fiction, or
> > original ideas that may not exist, aren't being discussed or
> > addressed per se. Yet we have a room full of Evolutionists who are
> > bogged down in misunderstanding this simple context: existence or
> > reality. Moreover we have a room full of Evolutionists arguing that
> > the phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't presuppose a claim of
> > existence! Yet "descent with modification" has been accepted as
> > existing in nature by a majority of naturalists/scientists since
> > 1872. One could rightly say that if a Creationist had said that said
> > phrase didn't presuppose existence Evolutionists would promptly
> > accuse the Creationist of misunderstanding!
>
> Again, you understand nothing. The phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't
> imply that evolution exists.

A doctor of evolutionary biology arguing the non-existence of the concept of evolution!

> We have other reasons to suppose that
> evolution exists, but the fact that there's a concept isn't one of those
> reasons.

Contradiction without any awareness of the fact!

>
> You last sentence also is untrue.
>
> > That said, concepts/nouns presuppose a claim of existence. Concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>
> You can repeat those claims all you like, but repetition doesn't make
> them true.
>
> > When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using
> > pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc.
> > The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the
> > thing comes first then the word by which it is known. Try and tell a
> > child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a
> > picture? The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire
> > place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the
> > child will immediately recognize the object for what it is. IF you
> > were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a
> > power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child
> > would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation)
> > was recognized.
>
> So much confusion, so little time. A picture isn't a claim of existence
> either. The fact that you can have a picture of something doesn't make
> that thing real. The fact that you learn lots of words from pictures
> doesn't mean the things in the pictures are real or that concepts are
> things. None of that paragraph is in any way relevant.

Nay saying.

Said paragraph is 100 percent true and supports everything I've been saying. You just refuse to admit anything, no matter how obvious.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Well yes, that's the point. It is the context and only the context that
determines if a statement carries an existential presupposition. The
grammatical category (noun) or the semantic a term (category) doesn't
tell you that.

Yet we have a room full of Evolutionists who are bogged down in
misunderstanding this simple context: existence or reality. Moreover we
have a room full of Evolutionists arguing that the phrase "concept of
evolution" doesn't presuppose a claim of existence!

That's because the context decides this, not the noun or the category.
If someone says: "Evolution doesn't happen", he is not making an
existential presupposition. If someone describes evolution in the
context of a science fiction novel, he doesn't make an existential
presupposition. If someone talks about evolutionary change that may or
may not happen in the future, they do not make an existential
presupposition.

You can stare as long as you want at individual terms, they don't tell
you anything about existence, only their use in sentences does.

Yet "descent with modification" has been accepted as existing in
nature by a majority of naturalists/scientists since 1872.

And nobody here has denied that.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:37:54 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 6/3/15, 12:34 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

CORRECTION MESSAGE; see below.

In non-fiction a worker needn't specify the exclusion of science fiction.

> > Nouns are not "things that allegedly exist".

Yes they are. A noun, as everyone well knows, is a person, place, or thing.

> > Nouns do exist,
> > and they point to things that may or may not allegedly exist.

Nouns presuppose a claim of existence, which addresses both points seen above.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

[snip....]

>
> No, that's your attempt to define the context so as to make you right by
> definition.

Allele change anyone?

> Nouns are not "things that allegedly exist". Nouns do exist,
> and they point to things that may or may not allegedly exist.
>

The first and second sentences contradict.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 6/3/15, 1:35 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/3/15, 12:34 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 6:33:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/15, 4:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept entails and actually is.
>>>>
>>>> By "almost nobody" I meant almost nobody in the world, not just on this
>>>> news group. Everybody does it wrong except Ray.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fact: The definition provided corresponds perfectly with the examples/explanation.
>>
>> Facts: 1) No, it does not and 2) just because your personal definition
>> fits your examples doesn't make it acceptable to others.
>
> The only thing required by a thesis, regarding definitions, is that
> any given definition match how it is used in said thesis. It's
> impossible for you not to know that. The fact that you're consumed
> with other than what I just said means the definition is sound.

Not sure what "sound" means. Do you mean that it's an allowed sequence
of words in English? It's certainly a very bad definition if you want to
cover what people usually mean by "concept". It also has various
problems of phrasing that make it seem self-contradictory, as I note
regarding your confusion between concepts and objects.

>>>>> The only requirement is a definition. And said definition is
>>>>> succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**
>>>>
>>>> You can always redefine any word to mean whatever you like. But you
>>>> can't expect others to follow along.
>>>
>>> But it's not a re-definition. It's a valid definition used by scholars far and wide.
>>
>> Possibly, if by "scholars" you mean "disciples of Ayn Rand". Look:
>> another personal definition!
>
> In other words you're ignorant of how scholars are known to define and use concepts!

In other words you just make up stuff when claiming to paraphrase.

No, that was a direct quote. Go back and read. You never mentioned
"widest allowable variation" in that entire paragraph, much less the bit
I quoted from.

>>>> You may know what you said, but I don't think
>>>> you understand how any other person would understand what you said.
>>>> Again, you defined a concept as an object. Do you see that?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the point! Our context is things that allegedly exist
>>> (nouns), epistemology, and science.
>>
>> No, that's your attempt to define the context so as to make you right by
>> definition. Nouns are not "things that allegedly exist". Nouns do exist,
>> and they point to things that may or may not allegedly exist.
>
> Nothing said here is true. In non-fiction a worker needn't specify
> the exclusion of science fiction; nouns presuppose a claim of
> existence, which addresses your last two non-truth statements.

Non-fiction can discuss imaginary things, you know. You keep repeating
that nouns presuppose a claim of existence, but you never justify that
and you ignore counter-examples. If I mention the Flying Spaghetti
Monster (peace be upon his noodly appendage) have I just claimed that He
exists?

>>> When I learned the epistemology
>>> that I'm advocating my source stated context only once: existence. So
>>> intelligent persons understand immediately that science fiction, or
>>> original ideas that may not exist, aren't being discussed or
>>> addressed per se. Yet we have a room full of Evolutionists who are
>>> bogged down in misunderstanding this simple context: existence or
>>> reality. Moreover we have a room full of Evolutionists arguing that
>>> the phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't presuppose a claim of
>>> existence! Yet "descent with modification" has been accepted as
>>> existing in nature by a majority of naturalists/scientists since
>>> 1872. One could rightly say that if a Creationist had said that said
>>> phrase didn't presuppose existence Evolutionists would promptly
>>> accuse the Creationist of misunderstanding!
>>
>> Again, you understand nothing. The phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't
>> imply that evolution exists.
>
> A doctor of evolutionary biology arguing the non-existence of the concept of evolution!

You really have trouble with reading. No, I argued that the phrase
"concept of evolution" doesn't imply that evolution exists. Of course
evolution does exist, and so does the concept of evolution (which is
something different).

The phrase "purple cow" doesn't imply that purple cows exist, but saying
that also doesn't imply that purple cows don't exist. You have a lot of
trouble with dichotomies.

>> We have other reasons to suppose that
>> evolution exists, but the fact that there's a concept isn't one of those
>> reasons.
>
> Contradiction without any awareness of the fact!

Please explain the contradiction.

>> You last sentence also is untrue.
>>
>>> That said, concepts/nouns presuppose a claim of existence. Concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>>
>> You can repeat those claims all you like, but repetition doesn't make
>> them true.
>>
>>> When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using
>>> pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc.
>>> The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the
>>> thing comes first then the word by which it is known. Try and tell a
>>> child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a
>>> picture? The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire
>>> place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the
>>> child will immediately recognize the object for what it is. IF you
>>> were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a
>>> power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child
>>> would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation)
>>> was recognized.
>>
>> So much confusion, so little time. A picture isn't a claim of existence
>> either. The fact that you can have a picture of something doesn't make
>> that thing real. The fact that you learn lots of words from pictures
>> doesn't mean the things in the pictures are real or that concepts are
>> things. None of that paragraph is in any way relevant.
>
> Nay saying.
>
> Said paragraph is 100 percent true and supports everything I've been
> saying. You just refuse to admit anything, no matter how obvious.

You seem unable to get beyond "is so!" or similar schoolyard expressions.

[John Harshman]

Sure. But any noun could be a person, place, or thing that exists, and
it could also be one that doesn't. Only outside knowledge can tell us
which. Here are some nouns: saiga, Blefescu, jackalope, Yugoslavia,
pangolin, thwump. Have I just made a claim that each of these things
exists? But I know that some of them do and others, in fact the
majority, don't. Am I then lying when I type those words? By the way, do
you know which denoted things don't exist?

Your ideas just don't fit reality very well.

>>> Nouns do exist,
>>> and they point to things that may or may not allegedly exist.
>
> Nouns presuppose a claim of existence, which addresses both points seen above.

It would if it were true. But it isn't.

[John Harshman]

You have some quoting problems; several things that Ray said come across
as if you said them. How are you posting?

[John Harshman]

Only if you have no idea what sentences mean. I presume that when you
said "things that allegedly exist" you were talking not about the nouns
themselves, which are labels that most certainly do exist, as labels,
but about the denoted by the nouns. That's what I mean by "point to
things". There are nouns, concepts, and the things from which the
concepts are abstracted. Each of these three entities is distinct. Nouns
are not concepts; concepts are not objects. The word "fish" is not the
concept of fish, and the concept of fish is not a fish. You have trouble
with that.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

[snip....]

> > When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using
> > pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc.
> > The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the
> > thing comes first then the word by which it is known. Try and tell a
> > child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a
> > picture? The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire
> > place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the
> > child will immediately recognize the object for what it is. IF you
> > were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a
> > power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child
> > would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation)
> > was recognized.
>
> So much confusion, so little time. A picture isn't a claim of existence
> either.

Implies that teachers hold up pictures of things that don't exist while teaching 3 to 5 year olds.

> The fact that you can have a picture of something doesn't make
> that thing real.

But when teaching 3 to 5 year old children teachers don't usually concern themselves with vampires, unicorns, and evolution.

> The fact that you learn lots of words from pictures
> doesn't mean the things in the pictures are real or that concepts are
> things.

True; it depends on the object in the picture. Yet the teaching format is reality-based and what was said concerning chimney's and smoke stacks shows, once again, the veracity of the definition of concept in the OPs.

> None of that paragraph is in any way relevant.

Just the opposite is true.

Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:

snip

>> Yes, that's the point! Our context is things that allegedly exist
>> (nouns), epistemology, and science. When I learned the epistemology
>> that I'm advocating my source stated context only once: existence. So
>> intelligent persons understand immediately that science fiction, or
>> original ideas that may not exist, aren't being discussed or addressed
>> per se.
>
>
> Well yes, that's the point. It is the context and only the context that
> determines if a statement carries an existential presupposition. The
> grammatical category (noun) or the semantic a term (category) doesn't
> tell you that.

I have a request for Burkhard that has nothing to do with concepts.
When you respond to Ray, you have a tendency to find a nice place to
break in with your clarifying points and then ... you seem to not
notice that the continuation is going to lack the chevron/greater
than sign that helps us known that what comes next is back to Ray.
It's a problem caused by google groups and long lines without
explicit returns. The effect is muddling the conversation.

So when you break in on something, add in that > sign for the
test that goes back to the prior author's text. Please? Pretty please?

For example, left alone, the following look like your words instead
of Ray's. Do you want that?

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 1:38:03 AM UTC-7, Joe Cummings wrote:
> On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 11:38:09 PM UTC+2, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 1:48:10 AM UTC-7, Joe Cummings wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 10:58:13 PM UTC+2, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
> > > >
> > > > The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
> > > >
> > > > The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.
> > > >
> > > > So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
> > > >
> > > > That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > >
> > > Ah, more foolery from Ray.
> > >
> > > I was under the impression that concepts were the material that the mind works with.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, exactly correct.
> >
> > > To argue that the determinant of "concept" is existence is to talk gibberish.
> > >
> >
> > Yet just above you recognized the material (= existence).
> >
> > > Let's try a practical test:
> > >
> > > Here are two concepts,
> > >
> > > "The impossibility of the existence of life on other planets."
> > >
> > > "The possibilty of the existence of life on other planets."
> > >
> > > These are both acceptable concepts in the sense that they are legitimate subjects of ratiocination, and one can have various opinions about them.
> > >
> > > Would Ray say that they aren't concepts? Or will he (as I think he will) come up with some ad hoc use of another word to maintain his "definition?"
> > >
> >
> > Both are concepts or claims about reality; currently the upper and lower are unsupported or false concepts due to lack of positive evidence in support.
> >
> > Ray
>
>
> Our Ray has a really serious problem with words and their use. Does he really think that, for instance, "material" has only one meaning? I could just as easily - and considering Ray's problem, should - have said "Concepts were what the mind works with."
>

But that's not what you said originally, and my initial rebuttal was based on what you said originally. You can amend what you said but don't blame me for your mistakes. You said "material" and it's right to define material as presupposing existence.

> He has this interesting habit of using words to mean just what he wants them to mean at the opportune time.
>

Material, your word; existence, my definition.

Ray

[snip....]

[Burkhard]

No, they really, really don't. The noun "unicorn" exists, and not just
allegedly. I've just written down a token of it - it has seven letters,
dates in its present form from the 13th century, came to English from
the old French and there from medieval Latin.

Unicorns however, the things of which "unicorn" is the English name, do
not exist.

Nouns definitely do exist, some are names of things that exists, some of

things that don't exist
>

> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> [snip....]
>
>>> When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using
>>> pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc.
>>> The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the
>>> thing comes first then the word by which it is known. Try and tell a
>>> child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a
>>> picture? The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire
>>> place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the
>>> child will immediately recognize the object for what it is. IF you
>>> were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a
>>> power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child
>>> would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation)
>>> was recognized.
>>
>> So much confusion, so little time. A picture isn't a claim of existence
>> either.
>
> Implies that teachers hold up pictures of things that don't exist while teaching 3 to 5 year olds.

Yes? That was the age when I was read stories from Grim's fairy tales,
and today's kids get Disney princesses, or the teletubbies.

[Burkhard]

My Newsreader has problems with Ray's google group posts, they show up
as just one long line. When I insert a reply where it belongs, I try to
restore the quoting manually, but for some reason it doesn't stick.

[Burkhard]

Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> snip
>>> Yes, that's the point! Our context is things that allegedly exist
>>> (nouns), epistemology, and science. When I learned the epistemology
>>> that I'm advocating my source stated context only once: existence. So
>>> intelligent persons understand immediately that science fiction, or
>>> original ideas that may not exist, aren't being discussed or addressed
>>> per se.
>>
>>
>> Well yes, that's the point. It is the context and only the context that
>> determines if a statement carries an existential presupposition. The
>> grammatical category (noun) or the semantic a term (category) doesn't
>> tell you that.
>
> I have a request for Burkhard that has nothing to do with concepts.
> When you respond to Ray, you have a tendency to find a nice place to
> break in with your clarifying points and then ... you seem to not
> notice that the continuation is going to lack the chevron/greater
> than sign that helps us known that what comes next is back to Ray.
> It's a problem caused by google groups and long lines without
> explicit returns. The effect is muddling the conversation.
>
> So when you break in on something, add in that > sign for the
> test that goes back to the prior author's text. Please? Pretty please?

I do that, honestly! But it seems my reader "spots" the manually
inserted chevrons and omits to send them on (or maybe moves them elsewhere

[John Harshman]

Yes, I habitually hit the "rewrap" button to deal with Ray's posts. You
don't have one of those?

[John Harshman]

On 6/3/15, 2:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> [snip....]
>
>>> When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using
>>> pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc.
>>> The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the
>>> thing comes first then the word by which it is known. Try and tell a
>>> child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a
>>> picture? The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire
>>> place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the
>>> child will immediately recognize the object for what it is. IF you
>>> were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a
>>> power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child
>>> would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation)
>>> was recognized.
>>
>> So much confusion, so little time. A picture isn't a claim of existence
>> either.
>
> Implies that teachers hold up pictures of things that don't exist while teaching 3 to 5 year olds.

You really have a lot of trouble with the word "implies". And yes,
sometimes they do. If they were teaching the word "witch", for example.

>> The fact that you can have a picture of something doesn't make
>> that thing real.
>
> But when teaching 3 to 5 year old children teachers don't usually concern themselves with vampires, unicorns, and evolution.

Not relevant, unless you actually meant to limit our discussion to
kindergarten. And not true either. Green eggs and ham, for example,
don't exist.

>> The fact that you learn lots of words from pictures
>> doesn't mean the things in the pictures are real or that concepts are
>> things.
>
> True; it depends on the object in the picture. Yet the teaching
> format is reality-based and what was said concerning chimney's and
> smoke stacks shows, once again, the veracity of the definition of
> concept in the OPs.

No it doesn't. The teaching format you mention is picture-based, not
necessarily reality-based, and has nothing to do with whether your
definition of "concept" is even coherent, much less acceptable.

>> None of that paragraph is in any way relevant.
>
> Just the opposite is true.

"Is so." "Is not." "Is so." "Is not." Etc.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/2/15 7:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 3:38:12 PM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>

> [snip material addressed previously....]

>
>>
>>
>>> So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise,
>>> presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns
>>> are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
>>

>> No they don't as your "unless indicated otherwise" foreshadows.
>> But it's more than that. Some usages of concepts are clearly
>> conjectural. So the "indication" is just usage.
>>
>> As usage dictates if a claim of existence is being made, there
>> is no need to complicate the definition of a concept with your
>> assertion about claims of existence. When it's apparent from
>> usage, there's a claim of existence. When it's not, there isn't one.
>

> Which is what I said.

No, you were trying to say that concepts are always "claims of
existence". You've been shown many reasons that is wrong.



> Too bad I had to say it because you and Burk quickly argued stated exceptions as somehow harming my claims.

The "stated exceptions" show that your claim is incorrect. What more
"harm" could one do to such a claim?

>
>>
>>> That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the
>>> concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism
>>> thrives.
>>

>> And that's just tossing a non sequitur onto obtuse attempts
>> to redefine words. Let's stick with the attempt to change the
>> historic definition of "concept".
>

> According to you when an evolution scholar writes about the concept of evolution he or she does not intend as presupposing existence in nature.

No, what he's saying is when a scientist writes about the "concept of
evolution" he or she is referring to the idea of evolution, ie the idea
that populations undergo genetic change over time. This idea is
supported by a large number of real world facts, but it is still an
idea. The concept of evolution exists within minds. The fact of
evolution exists in reality.



> Yet the concept of "descent with modification" has been accepted by a majority of naturalists as existing in nature since 1872.

Yes, the idea has been accepted for the reason that the idea corresponds
well with facts observed in nature. If the facts did not fit the idea,
the idea would have to be changed, or discarded.

That's what separates it from your own "concept of design". The
"concept of design" is not well supported by the evidence, and you
refuse to alter your idea when evidence to the contrary is presented to
you. You have assumed that "design" is seen in nature, when the actual
evidence does not support your "concept".



>
> The fact of the matter is that your understanding is COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS.

That's just "argumentum ad capslock". The actual fact is your are
mistaken, and refuse to accept your error.

> As if any evolution scholar is talking about a non-existent concept is something that Evolutionists would accuse of Creationists of misrepresenting!
>

What any scientist talking about the "concept of evolution" is
referring to is the idea of genetic change in populations over
generations, plus everything else that goes with it. In such a
situation, a "non existent concept" is meaningless. Concepts exist,
whether or not the facts support the concept.

Evolution, as a real world event, is very well supported by
observations all throughout the world, and in many different fields of
study. Saying that a concept of evolution is a mental construct, rather
than the physical process itself, does not mean the scientist doesn't
think that evolution (change in populations) is a real world phenomena.

Thinking about the concept of change in populations does not mean one
is claiming such a process exists. Claims that the process exists are
done by showing the evidence, and making predictions about what one
should find if the process is real. Holding an idea in one's head does
nothing to establish or claim that a corresponding item or process
actually exists. That is done by the hard work of presenting physical
evidence.

Until you can provide physical evidence that the appearance of design
can only come from a deliberate act of intelligent being, your "concept
of design" is only an unsupported idea, not an observation of design.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/3/15 1:34 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 6:33:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/29/15, 4:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>>>>
>>>> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.
>>>
>>> That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept entails and actually is.
>>
>> By "almost nobody" I meant almost nobody in the world, not just on this
>> news group. Everybody does it wrong except Ray.
>>
>
> Fact: The definition provided corresponds perfectly with the examples/explanation.

Your definition is way too limited to be a useful definition. Whether
or not it "corresponds perfectly" with your own assumptions is
irrelevant.

>
>>> The only requirement is a definition. And said definition is
>>> succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**
>>
>> You can always redefine any word to mean whatever you like. But you
>> can't expect others to follow along.
>>
>
> But it's not a re-definition. It's a valid definition used by scholars far and wide.

No, "scholars" ever use your definition. Why should they?

>
>>>>> For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined
>>>>> as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting
>>>>> legs. The legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and
>>>>> they could be made of different materials and of different styles.
>>>>> The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any
>>>>> other shape. The common denominator features include a flat surface
>>>>> and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came
>>>>> along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any
>>>>> object with a flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is
>>>>> refuted.
>>>>
>>>> Definitions and concepts and objects are all related to each other, but
>>>> you seem to interchange them inappropriately. You have just said that
>>>> the concept of a table is defined as an object, but a concept isn't an
>>>> object, so can't be defined as one. You might mean that a table is
>>>> defined as an object, but that's not what you said.
>>>
>>> What did I say? Obviously I know exactly what I said. I defined
>>> concept then gave two examples that fit the definition precisely.
>>> Your comments above do not reflect any obligatory accuracy of what I
>>> said.
>>
>> "Any obligatory accuracy"?
>
> Yes, you're obligated to quote and/or represent what I said in the OPs accurately. You didn't.

The problem with your demand above is, 1. when you write poorly, so that
others don't understand what you meant, it's not the fault of others for
misunderstanding. 2. you, yourself don't grant others the same
"obligatory accuracy" you demand for yourself.

>
>> You may know what you said, but I don't think
>> you understand how any other person would understand what you said.
>> Again, you defined a concept as an object. Do you see that?
>
> Yes, that's the point!

Which is why no one understands you. Sane people don't usually define
thoughts as physical objects.

> Our context is things that allegedly exist (nouns), epistemology, and science.

Unfortunately, you don't know anything about, language, epistemology, or

science.


> When I learned the epistemology that I'm advocating my source stated context only once: existence.

Ray, you show no sign of actually learning epistemology. Where did you
allegedly learn this, and from whom?

> So intelligent persons understand immediately that science fiction, or original ideas that may not exist, aren't being discussed or addressed per se.

Since you aren't an intelligent person, you shouldn't be assuming what
such people understand. Ideas exist within minds, Ray, so saying
"ideas that may not exist" is just being silly.

> Yet we have a room full of Evolutionists who are bogged down in misunderstanding this simple context: existence or reality.

Hint: it's not the "Evolutionists" who are bogged down.

> Moreover we have a room full of Evolutionists arguing that the phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't presuppose a claim of existence!

Which means the "evolutionists" are correct, and you are wrong, yet
again. A concept does not presume, or "presuppose" a claim of
existence. The "claim of existence" of evolution is when the evidence
is presented, and predictions are made. A scientific theory could
possibly be seen as a "claim of existence" but a concept itself is not.

> Yet "descent with modification" has been accepted as existing in nature by a majority of naturalists/scientists since 1872.

Because the evidence shows such a process is operating. The concept
itself, however exists within minds.

> One could rightly say that if a Creationist had said that said phrase didn't presuppose existence Evolutionists would promptly accuse the Creationist of misunderstanding!

That phrase does not presuppose anything. It simply describes what
is observed to happen. You are mistaking the idea with the physical
event.

>
> That said, concepts/nouns presuppose a claim of existence.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it so.

> Concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.

Again, you are merely reasserting what you need to be showing. No one
is required to take your word.

>
> When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc.

and even those children know that the picture isn't the thing itself.
That indicates your thinking processes are inferior to a 3 year old.

> The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the thing comes first then the word by which it is known.

Yet the image doesn't become the object, which is what you are claiming.

> Try and tell a child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a picture?

Children in Hawaii most likely have seen a chimney, and a fireplace.
In any case, a picture is not a chimney, or a fireplace. It's only a
representation of one.

> The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the child will immediately recognize the object for what it is.

That's because the child forms a mental image, ie a concept.

> IF you were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation) was recognized.
>

But even the child would not expect the picture of the smokestack to
have the same properties as a smokestack. You again show that a small
child surpasses your thought capacity.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/3/15 2:35 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/3/15, 12:34 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 6:33:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/15, 4:32 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 2:48:13 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/15, 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bad start. Almost nobody would agree with that definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the point: Evolutionists present do not know what a concept entails and actually is.
>>>>
>>>> By "almost nobody" I meant almost nobody in the world, not just on this
>>>> news group. Everybody does it wrong except Ray.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fact: The definition provided corresponds perfectly with the examples/explanation.
>>
>> Facts: 1) No, it does not and 2) just because your personal definition
>> fits your examples doesn't make it acceptable to others.
>
> The only thing required by a thesis, regarding definitions, is that any given definition match how it is used in said thesis.

Where do you get that idea, Ray? In any case, you still need to show
why your personal private definition is better than the one the rest of
the world uses.

> It's impossible for you not to know that.

Ray, your own twisted, and darkened brain is not the measure of the
world. What you "know" isn't common knowledge in the real world.

> The fact that you're consumed with other than what I just said means the definition is sound.

Now you are just asserting "facts" to avoid having to deal with what
John wrote. That's dishonest to yourself and everyone else. Your
definition is not "sound" because others refute it.

>
>>
>>>>> The only requirement is a definition. And said definition is
>>>>> succinct, precise, and followed by a **corresponding explanation.**
>>>>
>>>> You can always redefine any word to mean whatever you like. But you
>>>> can't expect others to follow along.
>>>
>>> But it's not a re-definition. It's a valid definition used by scholars far and wide.
>>
>> Possibly, if by "scholars" you mean "disciples of Ayn Rand". Look:
>> another personal definition!
>
> In other words you're ignorant of how scholars are known to define and use concepts!

Ray, no "scholars" anywhere in the world define and use concepts in the
way you describe. Asserting that "scholars" support you, without
giving any references is not a valid point.

Not in the sentence that John paraphrased. You attempted to define a
concept as an object. The 'widest allowable variation" is just piling
on adjectives, and doesn't change the facts. Concepts are not objects,
they are ideas.

>
>>
>>>> You may know what you said, but I don't think
>>>> you understand how any other person would understand what you said.
>>>> Again, you defined a concept as an object. Do you see that?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the point! Our context is things that allegedly exist
>>> (nouns), epistemology, and science.
>>
>> No, that's your attempt to define the context so as to make you right by
>> definition. Nouns are not "things that allegedly exist". Nouns do exist,
>> and they point to things that may or may not allegedly exist.
>
> Nothing said here is true.

If so, you'd be able to support your claims. Why can't you?

> In non-fiction a worker needn't specify the exclusion of science fiction; nouns presuppose a claim of existence, which addresses your last two non-truth statements.
>

Again, you just assert, without any support. Nouns do not "presuppose
a claim of existence" and never have. Nouns are parts of language.
They may refer to real, abstract, or imaginary things.

>>
>>> When I learned the epistemology
>>> that I'm advocating my source stated context only once: existence. So
>>> intelligent persons understand immediately that science fiction, or
>>> original ideas that may not exist, aren't being discussed or
>>> addressed per se. Yet we have a room full of Evolutionists who are
>>> bogged down in misunderstanding this simple context: existence or
>>> reality. Moreover we have a room full of Evolutionists arguing that
>>> the phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't presuppose a claim of
>>> existence! Yet "descent with modification" has been accepted as
>>> existing in nature by a majority of naturalists/scientists since
>>> 1872. One could rightly say that if a Creationist had said that said
>>> phrase didn't presuppose existence Evolutionists would promptly
>>> accuse the Creationist of misunderstanding!
>>
>> Again, you understand nothing. The phrase "concept of evolution" doesn't
>> imply that evolution exists.
>
> A doctor of evolutionary biology arguing the non-existence of the concept of evolution!

Where is that supposed "obligatory accuracy"? John did not argue the
"non existence of the concept of evolution". He said that the "concept
of evolution" doesn't imply that evolution exists. As he states just
below, we have other reasons to suppose evolution exists in the real world.

The concept of evolution exists within minds, and the existence of a
concept is not a claim that the process exists, it's an idea. The
"claim" a process exists comes when one shows the evidence, and makes
accurate predictions from the evidence, using the concept as a guide.

>
>> We have other reasons to suppose that
>> evolution exists, but the fact that there's a concept isn't one of those
>> reasons.
>
> Contradiction without any awareness of the fact!

There's no contradiction, Ray. One can't be aware of a "contradiction"
that does not exist.

>
>>
>> You last sentence also is untrue.
>>
>>> That said, concepts/nouns presuppose a claim of existence. Concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing.
>>
>> You can repeat those claims all you like, but repetition doesn't make
>> them true.
>>
>>> When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using
>>> pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc.
>>> The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the
>>> thing comes first then the word by which it is known. Try and tell a
>>> child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a
>>> picture? The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire
>>> place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the
>>> child will immediately recognize the object for what it is. IF you
>>> were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a
>>> power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child
>>> would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation)
>>> was recognized.
>>
>> So much confusion, so little time. A picture isn't a claim of existence
>> either. The fact that you can have a picture of something doesn't make
>> that thing real. The fact that you learn lots of words from pictures
>> doesn't mean the things in the pictures are real or that concepts are
>> things. None of that paragraph is in any way relevant.
>
> Nay saying.

Which is appropriate, as what you say is wrong. Do you really think
anyone should agree with false information?

>
> Said paragraph is 100 percent true and supports everything I've been saying.

You are just asserting a falsehood in hopes no one will call you on it.
When you are called, you just repeat your assertion.

> You just refuse to admit anything, no matter how obvious.

What is "obvious" to someone who has no connection with reality, and
what is real are quite different things.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

A writer of non fiction still understands that concepts are not "claims
of existence".

>
>>> Nouns are not "things that allegedly exist".
>
> Yes they are. A noun, as everyone well knows, is a person, place, or thing.

Which is not what you said. A noun is the participle of speech used to
denote persons, places, or things, including things that don't exist,
are imaginary, or abstract. There is no requirement that a noun refer
to a thing that actually exists.

>
>>> Nouns do exist,
>>> and they point to things that may or may not allegedly exist.
>
> Nouns presuppose a claim of existence, which addresses both points seen above.

Repeating your mistake doesn't make it right.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/3/15 3:07 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> [snip....]
>
>>
>> No, that's your attempt to define the context so as to make you right by
>> definition.
>
> Allele change anyone?

Allele change is a real phenomena, Ray. Defining evolution as change
in allele change in a population over generations is not making one
"right by definition". It's describing what is meant by a particular
word, as accurately as possible.

>
>> Nouns are not "things that allegedly exist". Nouns do exist,
>> and they point to things that may or may not allegedly exist.
>>
>
> The first and second sentences contradict.

Where, exactly? The first sentence is correct. Nouns are participles
of speech, which are used to denote both real, and imaginary, or
abstract things. No requirement that a noun denote actual existence is
made. The second sentence is also correct, and explains that nouns
may refer to things that do exist, or they may refer to things that
don't exist. The sentence does not contradict with the first one.

Are you going on record as saying you don't understand basic language
skills?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/3/15 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> [snip....]
>
>>> When children ages 3 to 5 years old are taught they are taught using
>>> pictures of things: cat, fire truck, flower, house, pencil, etc. etc.
>>> The image becomes recognized as a cat or fire truck etc. etc. So the
>>> thing comes first then the word by which it is known. Try and tell a
>>> child living in Hawaii what a chimney or fire place is absent a
>>> picture? The best and easiest way is to hold up a picture of a fire
>>> place or chimney and say: "Chimney" or "Fire place." Hence forth the
>>> child will immediately recognize the object for what it is. IF you
>>> were to show the same child a picture of a smoke stack fronting a
>>> power plant and the child were to say "chimney" guess what? The child
>>> would be right: the concept of chimney (widest allowable variation)
>>> was recognized.
>>
>> So much confusion, so little time. A picture isn't a claim of existence
>> either.
>
> Implies that teachers hold up pictures of things that don't exist while teaching 3 to 5 year olds.

The do quite often. Do "Snow White", or any of the other Disney
Princesses actually exist? Does Buzz Lightyear of Star Command exist
in reality?

>
>> The fact that you can have a picture of something doesn't make
>> that thing real.
>
> But when teaching 3 to 5 year old children teachers don't usually concern themselves with vampires, unicorns, and evolution.

Sure they do. Have you never seen a children's book? Have you never
heard of "Sesame Street", with "The Count", Big Bird, Cookie Monster, etc?

>
>> The fact that you learn lots of words from pictures
>> doesn't mean the things in the pictures are real or that concepts are
>> things.
>
> True; it depends on the object in the picture.

Which means your spiel was wrong.

> Yet the teaching format is reality-based and what was said concerning chimney's and smoke stacks shows, once again, the veracity of the definition of concept in the OPs.
>

It just shows you aren't aware of how badly you fail in trying to
explain what you think. Chimneys and pictures of chimneys are
different things. Showing a picture of a chimney does not get a child
to understand the "concept of a chimney". It's mere visual
recognition.

>> None of that paragraph is in any way relevant.
>
> Just the opposite is true.

You are wrong yet again.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/2/15 5:26 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 3:38:12 PM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:

>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For

>>> example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an
>>> object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The
>>> legs could be short or long and of varied thickness, and they could
>>> be made of different materials and of different styles. The surface
>>> of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape.
>>> The common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting
>>> legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said
>>> tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a
>>> flat surface with supporting legs and the nut is refuted.
>>

>> So you want to redefine the word concept, a word that has a lengthy
>> historical definition with Latin roots. As presented before, concept
>> derives from conseptus which is a noun form of the verb concipere
>> which in English is to conceive. A concept is that which was conceived.
>
> This says the word "concept" has only one valid narrow meaning (which is ridiculous).

In this particular context, the word "concept" does have only one valid
narrow meaning. That's why words have meanings, Ray, to avoid confusion.


snip the rest


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

What he said originally was essentially the same. You misunderstood
what he meant, and showed your ignorance.

> You can amend what you said but don't blame me for your mistakes.

He didn't make the mistake, Ray. You did.

> You said "material" and it's right to define material as presupposing existence.

"comment presumes that material has only one definition" does that
sound familiar Ray? When he wrote "material" he meant "resources",
not "material" as in "reality".

>
>> He has this interesting habit of using words to mean just what he wants them to mean at the opportune time.
>>
>
> Material, your word; existence, my definition.

Your definition was wrong, as usual. That's why you ended up making a
mistake. You assumed.


DJT

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/3/15 1:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Nouns presuppose a claim of existence, which addresses both points seen above.

Tauntaunshit.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Joe Cummings]

Ray is now floundering badly. He can't touch bottom and he can't swim.

Here's a little question for him. "Evolution" is a noun, and according to Ray that implies existence. Does evolution exist, then, Ray?

Joe Cummings

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 14:07:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

No, they don't.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Ray Martinez]

That's the point: the noun is a false claim about reality, unlike the examples given in the OP. Review the revised OP here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/9NdxvqrIMWU/E2P18YYSaaIJ

Evolutionists have been unable to show the mere concept (widest allowable variation of the alleged thing) existing in nature.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 2:38:09 PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 5:33:11 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > [FOR THE RECORD: BELOW IS A SLIGHTLY REVISED VERSION OF THE OPENING POST]
> >
> > A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The legs could be short or long and of different styles, vary in thickness, and made of various materials. The surface of a table could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. Common denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs; hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat surface supported by legs and the nut is refuted.

> >
> > The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers, mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist. Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
> >

> > The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow or enable a claimant the most generous opportunity to support existence.

> >
> > So concepts represent things; the same, unless indicated otherwise, presupposes a claim of existence. In epistemology and science nouns are concepts, presupposing a claim of existence.
> >
> > That said, evolutionary theorists have been unable to show that the concept of evolution exists in nature. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives.
> >
> > Ray
>

> Ray, I think you should drop this line of argument. If you just said "The theory of evolution is not supported by the evidence", you would avoid looking foolish. All this business about concepts presupposing existence (unless otherwise specified) or the principle of [sic] antynomy, or like causes and like effects, just makes you look nuts. You'd still be wrong, saying that the evidence didn't support evolution, but at least you wouldn't look as though you couldn't string two thoughts together.
>

The fact that you don't know that concepts/nouns presuppose a claim of existence; coupled with the fact that you reject the Newtonian logic of like causes/like effects; is clear evidence that you and several other Evolutionists, including Dr. John Harshman, are inexcusably ignorant/deluded without any awareness of the fact.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/4/15 11:50 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [snip dysfunctional formatting]

> The fact that you don't know that concepts/nouns presuppose a claim
> of existence; coupled with the fact that you reject the Newtonian
> logic of like causes/like effects; is clear evidence that you and
> several other Evolutionists, including Dr. John Harshman, are
> inexcusably ignorant/deluded without any awareness of the fact.

What sort of words and ideas do people use when they want to claim
*nonexistence* of a thing? For example, I claim that hodags do not
exist. Does my claim now mean that "hodag" is not a noun, and that
there is no such concept?

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 4:23:10 PM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > [FOR THE RECORD: BELOW IS A SLIGHTLY REVISED VERSION OF THE OPENING
> > POST]
> >
> > A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing. For
> > example: The concept of table (an Ayn Rand favorite) is defined as an
> > object with a flat surface that usually has four supporting legs. The
> > legs could be short or long and of different styles, vary in
> > thickness, and made of various materials. The surface of a table
> > could be square, rectangle, circular, or any other shape. Common
> > denominator features include a flat surface and supporting legs;
> > hence the "concept of table." If a nut came along and said tables
> > don't exist all one has to do is produce any object with a flat
> > surface supported by legs and the nut is refuted.
> >
> > The same is true concerning the concept of cat. Lions, tigers,
> > mountain lions, bobcats, and house cats, for example, all exist.
> > Hence the "concept of cat." If a nut came along and said cats don't
> > exist all one has to do is produce one cat and the nut is refuted.
> >
> > The whole entire purpose of concepts is to allow or enable a claimant
> > the most generous opportunity to support existence.
>

> Try to follow me here Ray. You have some things partly right but
> fail to apply those things in a self-consistent way while w[a]ndering
> into assertions that fail on all sorts of levels.

Let's read on and see if Roger's criticism is valid?

>
> Some concepts are, indeed, broadly defined abstractions.

See that John Harshman?

> Table is
> indeed a broad category concept,

Like I said and showed.

> broader than end table, or kitchen
> table, not as broad as furniture. Each of these reflects a level of
> refinement of an idea about a useful way to create a category. We
> can put a word to the idea, the concept, and it helps us communicate
> the right level of refinement the idea, sometimes furniture, sometimes
> table, sometimes end table. So far, so good.

Okay.

>
> Now lets apply this to the concept of what a concept is. It helps
> to know something about how the word came to be. It turns out that
> the word concept comes from the word conceive which roughly means
> to give birth to an idea in this context. A concept is thus an idea
> that one has given birth too. This is a documented fact. I can
> supply etymologies upon request.

Don't, I've never denied. In addition: I've also always said that words, in this case "concept" can have more than one valid meaning (as everyone already knows). And I've said ideas IN OUR CONTEXT are, for the most part, obtained from reality (external to mind and imagination). So ideas are nouns and nouns are concepts as defined in the OP (seen above). The common denominator underlying ideas, nouns, and concepts, is an alleged thing. So it makes no sense whatsoever to think of a word, term, or identity absent the alleged thing.

>
> Now, nothing in that says what kind of idea, so the word concept
> rightly holds the broadest possible meaning by including all types
> of ideas. Good ideas, silly ideas, ideas about the future, the past,
> ideas about things that exist and ideas about things that don't exist.
>
> It's a good word. It helps us communicate about the category of
> things that are ideas. We need such a category and concepts is
> the word we use to describe that category.

Nothing said harms any OP claim. But I get the distinct impression that you define idea as detached from thing. Again, the OP, as written, is only concerned with epistemology and science----existence and reality. So bad or false ideas are just that. I and OP are only concerned with established ideas, like tables, cats, and evolution.

>
> And ideas do exist quite independently of whether or not the things
> the ideas are about exist.

Absolutely true statement.

Yet if a corresponding thing doesn't exist then said idea is a false claim about reality.

The above statement is absolutely true as well.

> The idea of unicorns exists as is
> demonstrated by our ability to talk to one another about paintings
> of unicorns or stories about unicorns, or unicorns in stories and
> paintings and how people came up the the idea of a unicorn. The
> idea clearly exists. Actual unicorns, not so much.

I completely agree. Never denied. And actual unicorns, the thing itself, do not exist. The point: the noun/concept of unicorn (traverse to Google Images and see many variations of a horse with protruding horn from forehead) is a false claim about reality. If a nut were to come along and say otherwise all he or she has to do is produce one variation and people like me are refuted. But you and I know the nut can't.

>
> But you've got this assertion above - that the whole point of
> concepts is to allow people to make claims supporting the existence of
> the things that fall under the set of things that the concept describes.

It's not an assertion but an accurate observation or deduction obtained from the pool of like things----what I called "the widest allowable variation of the alleged thing." If a nut came along and said unicorns exist all the nut has to do is produce any recognizable variation of the alleged thing, in this case any horse like creature with horn protruding from the forehead area. Note the unicorn could be of any color or sex and of any size. What the nut MUST do is produce the two common denominator features: horse like creature with horn protruding from forehead.

Replace unicorn with any scientific noun/concept and the requirements remain the same. Per the OP: no one is going to challenge the concept of tables or cats, but he same is not true concerning evolution and design. The OP is saying that evolutionary scientists cannot produce any recognizable variation of the alleged thing (evolution) existing in nature. This loose requirement lifts the burden of supporting one precise variation although the production of one precise variation would support the claim and concept as existing.

>
> That directly conflicts with what has already been established,
> that "concept" describes an idea in a much broader and less constrained
> sense.

You've already admitted that "concept" has more than one valid meaning. From above:

"Some concepts are, indeed, broadly defined abstractions. Table is indeed a broad category concept" (Roger Shrubber).

The OP argues the same: "A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing."

> For clearly not all ideas are about attempting to establish
> what does and doesn't exist, not even close.

I never said otherwise. All I'm saying is that IF a claimant and his/her idea doesn't correspond with a thing (widest allowable variation, which provides the greatest opportunity to support existence) then the idea is a false claim about reality.

> People who are sure
> that tables exist still talk about tables. People who are sure
> that unicorns don't exist still talk about unicorns. We invoke
> concepts, and use the label of concept for those concepts, for
> many other purposes.
>
> You claim that concepts have this specific narrow purpose directly
> contradicts with the idea that concepts are things that encapsulate
> some appropriately abstracted category. That contradiction is
> fatal to your claim.

Except I claim exactly opposite: concepts don't have a narrow purpose but a wide purpose! See the OP!

"A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing." I then provide two examples of things that are widely variable while retaining common denominator characteristics.

>
> That contradiction is evident in the roots of the word which indicate it
> was crafted to deal with ideas in a generic sense.

Comment assumes false ideas are under consideration; they are not. What's under consideration is ideas that are purported to exist.

>
> Now there is also an extensive history of usage behind "concept"
> that conflicts with your claim about "whole entire purpose of concepts".
>

Only if you include known false ideas and science fiction. Again, the topic of this news group presupposes the exclusion of these ideas and concepts. I don't understand what you don't understand?

BUT if a person were to say vampires exist then all said person has to do is produce one human being who sucks blood into their body using fang like teeth.

All Evolutionists have to do is produce one scrap of evidence showing an unintelligent agent causing evolutionary change and the concept of evolution is supported as existing in nature. If the concept exists then Creationism is falsified in its tracks because Creationism says only Intelligent causation exists in nature, causing all biological production.

> And it's a pretty fatal to fail by simple analysis of the word origins,
> to fail by etymological analysis, and to produce claims that are
> self-contradictory as part of your core thesis.

Yet words have more than one valid meaning, especially "concepts."

Out of curiosity I asked two different Theists (anti-evolutionists) recently if the conceptual presupposes existence. Without any hesitation both said "of course."

Your criticism fails, Roger. It is wholly dependent on a claim that says the word "concept" has only one valid meaning. Etymologists accept the validity of stipulated meanings. But I haven't relied on the stipulative.

My definition (first sentence of OP) is followed by two examples that support the meaning exactly.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 1:22:51 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/4/15 11:50 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > [snip dysfunctional formatting]
> > The fact that you don't know that concepts/nouns presuppose a claim
> > of existence; coupled with the fact that you reject the Newtonian
> > logic of like causes/like effects; is clear evidence that you and
> > several other Evolutionists, including Dr. John Harshman, are
> > inexcusably ignorant/deluded without any awareness of the fact.
>
> What sort of words and ideas do people use when they want to claim
> *nonexistence* of a thing? For example, I claim that hodags do not
> exist. Does my claim now mean that "hodag" is not a noun, and that
> there is no such concept?

It means the noun, in this case, "hodag" is a false claim about reality. One can indeed place said noun in the same category as unicorns and vampires. Perhaps one day a person will come along and say hodags exist. If they can produce just one for all to examine then they've earned the right to take hodag from said category and place it in the same category as tables and cats.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Yes. So? Has that ever been doubted?

Ah, see. You think that's what you have been saying. No, it isn't.

[snip]

> You've already admitted that "concept" has more than one valid meaning. From above:
>
> "Some concepts are, indeed, broadly defined abstractions. Table is indeed a broad category concept" (Roger Shrubber).
>
> The OP argues the same: "A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing."

When you say two things are the same, that's good reason (based on
extensive experience) to suppose they are not. And indeed that's true here.

>> For clearly not all ideas are about attempting to establish
>> what does and doesn't exist, not even close.
>
> I never said otherwise. All I'm saying is that IF a claimant and his/her idea doesn't correspond with a thing (widest allowable variation, which provides the greatest opportunity to support existence) then the idea is a false claim about reality.

Concepts don't make claims. People make claims. They use words and
concepts to make those claims, but the concepts themselves are not
claims. There's your problem. The word "unicorn", as well as the concept
behind the word, makes no claim about the reality or lack thereof of
unicorns. People use the word in various ways, some of which may indeed
claim that unicorns are real, but most of which don't.

> Comment assumes false ideas are under consideration; they are not. What's under consideration is ideas that are purported to exist.

No, ideas really do exist, and there's no argument about that, so no
"purported". The question is whether the things (in this case mostly
phenomena) referred to by the ideas are purported to exist by the very
fact that the ideas exist. The answer is that they aren't, as
demonstrated by "unicorn".

Evolution is indeed purported to exist. But mere use of the word or
concept of evolution is not a claim of existence. Why, you use it
yourself -- the word, that is, since you are quite unclear on the concept.

>> Now there is also an extensive history of usage behind "concept"
>> that conflicts with your claim about "whole entire purpose of concepts".
>
> Only if you include known false ideas and science fiction.

Nope. I can in fact use the term "string theory" even though I don't
know whether strings exist or don't exist. And when I do, I make no
claim that strings do or do not exist.

[Roger Shrubber]

Yes you have, in very muddled ways.
And you should stop because claiming that things exist, and
generating concepts are largely disjoint.

>> People who are sure that tables exist still talk about tables.
>> People who are sure that unicorns don't exist still talk about
>> unicorns. We invoke concepts, and use the label of concept for
>> those concepts, for many other purposes.
>>
>> You claim that concepts have this specific narrow purpose directly
>> contradicts with the idea that concepts are things that
>> encapsulate some appropriately abstracted category. That
>> contradiction is fatal to your claim.
>
> Except I claim exactly opposite: concepts don't have a narrow purpose
> but a wide purpose! See the OP!
>
> "A concept is the widest allowable variation of an alleged thing." I
> then provide two examples of things that are widely variable while
> retaining common denominator characteristics.

Some concepts have narrow definitions, some have broad definitions.
Some have purposes as intrinsics. Most don't have purposes as intrinsic
parts of their definition. That last is good, because purposes
change according to individuals and concepts that change from
individual to individual make communication difficult.

>> That contradiction is evident in the roots of the word which
>> indicate it was crafted to deal with ideas in a generic sense.
>
> Comment assumes false ideas are under consideration; they are not.
> What's under consideration is ideas that are purported to exist.

You usage of "false" is as non-standard as your attempted usage
of "concept". Concepts are not false. Claims are false. Concepts
are not claims. More on this below.

>> Now there is also an extensive history of usage behind "concept"
>> that conflicts with your claim about "whole entire purpose of
>> concepts".
>>
>
> Only if you include known false ideas and science fiction. Again, the
> topic of this news group presupposes the exclusion of these ideas and
> concepts. I don't understand what you don't understand?

You don't understand science.
In physics and in chemistry we teach and learn about the ideal gas law.
PV = nRT. P is Pressure. V is volume n how much ideal gas in moles
R is a conversion constant for the set of units being used.
T is Temperature
Know three of the values for P V n T and you can calculate the other.
It's an important part of physics and chemistry. Did the pressure of
a football drop because it was colder on the field? We can get a
quick approximation for that using that law.

Except, ideal gases don't exist. We know they don't exist. We
nevertheless find it very useful to model ideal gases and teach
the ideal gas law. The concept of an ideal gas is a good concept.
If somebody claimed that an ideal gas exists, that claim would
be a false claim. But it's still a good and useful concept.

Let's expand on this.

If I take you into my barn and point into the stall and say
"there is my horse", or "there is my goat" or "there is my unicorn"
I have made three separate claims about three separate concepts.
If the stall is empty, is the concept of horse|goat|unicorn false?
No, the concept doesn't change. Each of the claims would be false,
the concepts don't change. If there were a wood carving of a unicorn
would any concepts be false? No. The first two statements would be
false claims, the third a true claim.

And it's nice how that works out. I don't want the concept of horse
to change in an essential way when I make a claim, you make a
claim, and especially not when John Harshman makes a claim,
because he is a harsh man.

And you already admit that we don't always make claims of existence
when we invoke concepts. So you are partway home. You just have
to admit that concepts are not claims. Claims are claims. Saying,
"look at my unicorn | horse | goat" is a claim of sorts. If I'm
pointing at something, it is a claim that where I am pointing
you can see a unicorn | horse | goat. You know it's that type
of claim because the verb "look" implies in context that such
looking will allow you to see something. Claims come from the
context of the language in which concepts are used. They don't
come from the concepts themselves.

It's worth repeating.
Claims come from the context of the language in which concepts
are used. They don't come from the concepts themselves.

And again, that's good because that way a concept can be
about things intrinsic to the idea and don't depend upon
who is invoking the idea or the purpose for which they invoke
the idea.

> BUT if a person were to say vampires exist then all said person has
> to do is produce one human being who sucks blood into their body
> using fang like teeth.

Saying that vampires exist is a claim. The claim is a distinct
entity from the concept. Here is a sentence to consider.
"My claim is that vampires exist".
_claim_ is the subject of the sentence. A noun at that.
The concept of a _claim_ is that claims are propositions one
makes. Claims can have the simple properties of being true,
false, but can also have more complex properties like being
under-determined, sometimes true, sometimes false, unknown
and others.

I don't say that a claim is about what exists because a
claim could be a statement that X exists, that X does
not exist, that X used to exist. That it would be funny
if X exists, or scary if X exists or useful to think
about what it would be like if X exists. For each of
those claims we might want to assign a true, false, other
value.

_vampire_ is a concept of a blood sucking creature of various
types. One might have claims that they exist, that they
exist in a story, that it would be scary if they existed
or all sorts of other claims. You can evaluate those
claims as true or false or other. But the concept of what
a vampire is remains unchanged.

The exception would be in those cases where, for some
reason, you refine an existing concept, or generate a
new concept that specifically embodies a claim of existence.
One could define vampires as fictitious creatures. Or
you could define TrueVampires as actual existing vampires
if there were a reason to do so, however, that would be
a less broad category than just _vampires_ where you
left the concept out of the whole claims of existence
restrictions and just let actual statements that one
makes do the claiming.

That is what most of us do. We don't make claims of
existence, in terms of objective reality, with the
development of most concepts. Any such claims happen
in the context of statement in which those concepts
are invoked.

That way you keep claims about existence to where
claims are being made, which is nice because the
context is present and the concepts can be recycled
in different claims in different contexts.

> All Evolutionists have to do is produce one scrap of evidence showing
> an unintelligent agent causing evolutionary change and the concept of
> evolution is supported as existing in nature. If the concept exists
> then Creationism is falsified in its tracks because Creationism says
> only Intelligent causation exists in nature, causing all biological
> production.

One thing at a time. I'm happy to come back to evidence for
evolution but don't want to have to keep repairing your non-standard
and confusing usage of the term "concept".

[John Harshman]

On 6/4/15, 4:15 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:

>Did the pressure of a football drop because it was colder on the field?

Are you perhaps a Patriots fan? If so, keep telling yourself that.

[Roger Shrubber]

I am a Patriots fan. The pressure in the Colts footballs and the
Patriots footballs dropped because of a decrease in temperature.
That was well established, quantitatively.

I'm also a Neil Young fan and
I've seen the _n_eedle and the damage done. T changed. n changed too.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/4/15 3:22 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 1:22:51 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/4/15 11:50 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> [snip dysfunctional formatting]
>>> The fact that you don't know that concepts/nouns presuppose a claim
>>> of existence; coupled with the fact that you reject the Newtonian
>>> logic of like causes/like effects; is clear evidence that you and
>>> several other Evolutionists, including Dr. John Harshman, are
>>> inexcusably ignorant/deluded without any awareness of the fact.
>>
>> What sort of words and ideas do people use when they want to claim
>> *nonexistence* of a thing? For example, I claim that hodags do not
>> exist. Does my claim now mean that "hodag" is not a noun, and that
>> there is no such concept?
>
> It means the noun, in this case, "hodag" is a false claim about reality.

Nouns are not claims about reality, Ray. Where, exactly did you get
the idea that they are? Who told you this? More importantly, why did
you believe this person?

> One can indeed place said noun in the same category as unicorns and vampires. Perhaps one day a person will come along and say hodags exist. If they can produce just one for all to examine then they've earned the right to take hodag from said category and place it in the same category as tables and cats.
>

The noun "Hodag" exists, and the "concept of hodag" exists, even if
there isn't any real world counterpart. That shows your assertion
that nouns are "claims of existence" is just nonsense.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/4/15 2:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 4:23:10 PM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:

snipping a lot of things Ray gets wrong.

> All Evolutionists have to do is produce one scrap of evidence showing an unintelligent agent causing evolutionary change and the concept of evolution is supported as existing in nature.

This has been done many times already, but you just deny that the
changes are due to an "unintelligent agent". You insist that there are
no "unintelligent" processes, which makes your challenge here
meaningless by definition. Then, to muddle your assertion even more,
you claim that an intelligent agent can't make use of an "unintelligent"
process. In this way you define away any changes that you can't deny
as not being "evolutionary".

Scientists define evolution, at least in the most basic form, as
being change in allele frequency in a population of organisms over
generations. The definition says nothing about whether or not the
"agent" of that change was 'intelligent' or 'unintelligent', because it
doesn't matter.

If allele frequencies in a population change over generations, then
evolution has happened. What caused that change, whether it was a
random mutation produced by a completely natural cosmic ray striking a
strand of DNA, or a supernatural being deliberately and divinely
changing a gene, it's still evolution. If the allele gains fixation in
a population due to natural selection of the environment favoring a
particular allele combination in the population of gazelles in the wild,
or by an intelligent being selecting for a particular allele for larger
eggs in a population of domestic chickens, it's still evolution.

> If the concept exists then Creationism is falsified in its tracks because Creationism says only Intelligent causation exists in nature,

No, Ray. Only YOU say that "only Intelligent causation exists in
nature". Other creationists are not so foolish. The concept that God
created is not falsified by the fact of evolution. It just contradicts
your particular religious belief in how God created. If God uses
evolution to create, it's still "intelligent causation".



> causing all biological production.

Just like you seem to allow natural processes to make snowflakes. But
you don't allow God to use evolution, another natural process, to create
the diversity of life. Your position is inconsistent.

>
>> And it's a pretty fatal to fail by simple analysis of the word origins,
>> to fail by etymological analysis, and to produce claims that are
>> self-contradictory as part of your core thesis.
>
> Yet words have more than one valid meaning, especially "concepts."

Many words can have more than one valid meaning, depending on
context. If one wishes to communicate with others, one needs to
consistently use the same meaning as the other person is using, in each
particular instance the word is used.

What you are insisting on is that you be allowed to use invalid,
private meanings, in any instance you think helps your case, without any
consistency, and regardless of the agreed on meaning that everyone else
is using. This is usually called "equivocation".

You can do this, if you want, but it makes communicating with you
nearly impossible.

>
> Out of curiosity I asked two different Theists (anti-evolutionists) recently if the conceptual presupposes existence. Without any hesitation both said "of course."

It's not surprising that your circle of acquaintances (who are likely
only imaginary) might share your own peculiar beliefs. That doesn't
mean they are correct. Why not consult some dictionaries, written by
people who actually know what words mean?

>
> Your criticism fails, Roger.

Only if you ignore reality.

> It is wholly dependent on a claim that says the word "concept" has only one valid meaning.

The word "concept" may have more than one valid meaning, but you haven't
shown that your private meaning is a valid one. If only you and the
voices in your head use it, it's not valid for anyone else.

> Etymologists accept the validity of stipulated meanings. But I haven't relied on the stipulative.

You have relied on a private, invalid meaning, that no one but you, and
your (likely) imaginary friends, use.

>
> My definition (first sentence of OP) is followed by two examples that support the meaning exactly.

Your definition is not used by anyone else, and it's badly inadequate as
a definition. That's why no one else uses it.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Ignoring for a moment that concepts exist only within minds:

Scientists have shown many times that genetic changes happen within
populations of organisms, and that those changes persist over
generations. Enough changes over enough generations produces a
population that is no longer able to breed with it's parent population.

Here are a few examples:

http://darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html

That is definitely within the "widest allowable variation" of
evolution happening in nature.

Why do you then deny it happens?

DJT

[John Harshman]

As long as there's an asterisk next to the Superbowl win, I'm satisfied.