Conceptualization vs Non-Conceptualization

[Veritas Aequitas]

Conceptualization vs Non-Conceptualization is related to philosophical realism vs ANTI-philosophical realism in some ways, thus morality realism vs moral relativism or moral skepticism.

From AI [with reservations]
....................................................................
Conceptualization vs. Non-Conceptualization
Two Modes of Understanding the World

Conceptualization involves forming ideas and categories, while non-conceptualization emphasizes direct, unmediated experience.
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and understanding them can help us navigate the complexities of human thought and perception.

Conceptualization
•Definition: The process of forming concepts, ideas, and categories.
•Role of Thought: Abstract and rational, based on logic and reason.
•Source of Knowledge: External world interpreted through concepts and mental frameworks.
•Examples: Identifying an object as a "chair," understanding the concept of "love," categorizing emotions like "happy" or "sad."


Conceptualization is a fundamental human cognitive process that allows us to organize and make sense of the world around us.
We form concepts by grouping together similar objects, events, or experiences and attaching labels to them.
This mental organization helps us to learn, communicate, and reason effectively.
However, conceptualization can also be limiting, as it can lead us to overlook nuances and complexities that don't fit neatly into our pre-existing categories.

Non-Conceptualization
•Definition: Direct, unmediated experience without the use of concepts or categories.
•Role of Thought: Pre-conceptual, based on immediate sensory input and emotional response.
•Source of Knowledge: Direct engagement with the world through the senses and emotions.
•Examples: Experiencing the taste of a piece of chocolate, appreciating the beauty of a sunset, feeling the connection with another person.

Non-conceptualization allows us to experience the world in its raw, unfiltered form. It can be a source of intense pleasure, creativity, and spiritual insight. However, it can also be challenging to articulate or communicate non-conceptual experiences, as they often defy language and categorization.

Comparison of Conceptualization and Non-Conceptualization
Conceptualization
•Strengths of Conceptualization:
oAllows for organization and meaning-making
oEnables communication and reasoning
oProvides a basis for learning and problem-solving
•Weaknesses of Conceptualization:
oCan be limiting and rigid
oCan overlook nuances and complexities
oCan lead to misinterpretations and biases

Non-Conceptualization
•Strengths of Non-Conceptualization:
oAllows for direct and authentic experience
oCan be a source of creativity and insight
oCan foster connection and empathy
•Weaknesses of Non-Conceptualization:
oCan be difficult to articulate or communicate
oCan be overwhelming or disorienting
oCan lack focus and direction

Conceptualization and non-conceptualization are not mutually exclusive; they are rather complementary ways of understanding the world.
Ideally, we can find a balance between the two, using conceptualization to give structure and meaning to our experience while remaining open to the richness and complexity of non-conceptual awareness.

•Both conceptualization and non-conceptualization are valuable tools for understanding the world.
•Finding a balance between the two can lead to a richer and more nuanced understanding of ourselves and our place in the world.
•By expanding our awareness of both modes of thought, we can cultivate greater flexibility, creativity, and compassion.
........................................................

My Views:
Conceptualization and Philosophical Realism:

Because the main claim of philosophical realism is reality and things are absolutely mind-independent, e.g. the moon exists regardless of humans, philosophical realists focus on conceptualization [conscious and unconscious] to understand reality.

On the other hand, for the anti-philosophical_realist, claim that prior to conceptualization there is the non-conceptualization of reality that emerged and is realized before it is subsequently conceptualized, then perceived, known and described.
See my explanation below;

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

The are the non-conceptualization processes that is activated before reality and things are conceptualized to be perceived, known and described.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

[Iwannaplato]

Non-Conceptualization
•Definition: Direct, unmediated experience without the use of concepts or categories.

1) we have categories built in very deeply. Yes, all of us have less conceptualized experiences or more direct, but everything is filtered by our preconceptions and our senses also filter. There is no unmediated experience. And actually antirealists understand this. It is part of their point, that everything is mediated.

My Views:
Conceptualization and Philosophical Realism:

Because the main claim of philosophical realism is reality and things are absolutely mind-independent, e.g. the moon exists regardless of humans, philosophical realists focus on conceptualization [conscious and unconscious] to understand reality.

You'd need to justify this more. I don't see this at all. Realists who are empirical are always trying to get to as unfiltered and mediated observations as possible. Isolating variables, and so on.

And are you really saying that anti realists are not focusing on conceptualization to understand reality?

Are you really saying that realist don't eat chocolate and savor it. Look at your examples above of unmediated experiencing and try to justify that antirealists do this more than realists. Based on what?

And if you look at any antirealist text or conversation you will see as much conceptualization as any realist text or speech.

On the other hand, for the anti-philosophical_realist, claim that prior to conceptualization there is the non-conceptualization of reality that emerged and is realized before it is subsequently conceptualized, then perceived, known and described.

Could you find some quotes by antiphilosohpical realists where they say this and where realists deny this.

I mean if anything antirealists, including Kant, consider what we experience to be created by our conscious and unconscious conceptual schemas.

That there is no such thing as raw experience. The contructive empiricists also believe that language, culture and preconceptions lead to our experiences and there is no raw experience.

I think, if anything, if anything the precise opposite of the case you made is true.

Of course the antirealist could enjoy the chocolate, but they would assume that all sorts of mediation, filters, culture, language is involved in the creation of that experience and that's a given.

I mean, the darn English and Swedes with their salty candy, yechh.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And are you really saying that anti realists are not focusing on conceptualization to understand reality?

You missed my point in the OP, I wrote; [edited out]

VA:On the other hand, [..] the anti-philosophical_realist claim that prior to conceptualization there is the non-conceptualization of reality that emerged and is realized [... then] it is subsequently conceptualized, [...] perceived, known and described.

For the anti-philosophical_realist, there is a two stage process
1. the realization [non-conceptualization] and
2. subsequent perception, knowing, and description [conceptualization] of reality.

Note Kant's famous quote;
"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind."

The intuitions and 'content' allude to non-conceptualized elements which Kant did not elaborate much due to his ignorance of what is going on in the brain [neuroscience, cognitive science] during his time.

The non-conceptualized elements and processes would refer to the fundamental algorithms which are adapted from our early unicellular ancestors 3 billion years ago.

See, I don't whine about it, if necessary I will remind and repeat what you missed out, if not critical, I will just ignore it.

[Iwannaplato]

See, I don't whine about it, if necessary I will remind and repeat what you missed out, if not critical, I will just ignore it.

Perhaps at some point I said you were whining. My recent comment, though not here, was that you insulted in response to posts without insults.

I notice that as usual you do not integrate what I wrote in your response. It's not clear at all that you understood what I wrote and you didn't address it.
We could go on posting where I quote portions of your text and react directly to those, while you restate your positions and don't interact with what I write.

But why should I waste my time?

Perhaps someone else will see my objectiion and interact with it.

And just for fun I put your assertions into two different AIs and they agreed with my criticism about the realist/antirealist raw experience reversal I mentioned above. And they were very specific and clear about it.

[Impenitent]

But why should I waste my time?

it's obvious that you (nor any of us) do not exist empirically... nothing exists outside of the pre-formed concepts in VA's mind...

especially other people with undescribed, individual characteristics (from the authority of AI)

discuss??

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

But why should I waste my time?

it's obvious that you (nor any of us) do not exist empirically... nothing exists outside of the pre-formed concepts in VA's mind...

especially other people with undescribed, individual characteristics (from the authority of AI)

discuss??

-Imp

He's gone off the deep end recently, or perhaps it's part of upswings and downswings. Now he's saying that the people who disagree with his constructive empiricism or transcendental idealism are all Rationalists - not that he seems to realize that's what he's saying when he thinks they all see no role for physical interaction or senses in the gaining of knowledge.

Find something that seems to disagree with Peter Holmes, throw it at the forum, vaguely justify it, don't take a moment to see if it fits with the other things he has said, never admit anything when criticized, never back down, defend and defend contradictions as if they don't exists, find some new philosopher or idea, throw it into the forum vaguely or directly at PH, don't spend time seeing if it fits with anything else, ask the AIs with different wordings until they seem to justify it,
rinse and repeat ad infinitim

[Iwannaplato]

Or, to put it another way...
if the Moon does not exist when it isn't being looked at,
then things that cannot be looked at ever (unobservables) cannot exist.
VA can't have it both ways.
There were months where he looked down on realists for thinking the Moon was there when no one was looking at it. Pages of condescension.

And the Moon would only be temporarily unobservable.

But suddenly unobservables exist.

Noumena, no. Unobservables, yes.

Inferring is not allowed...then inferring is allowed.

In a sense it's like you are punished if you actually read and remember what he says.

[Veritas Aequitas]

See, I don't whine about it, if necessary I will remind and repeat what you missed out, if not critical, I will just ignore it.

Perhaps at some point I said you were whining. My recent comment, though not here, was that you insulted in response to posts without insults.

I notice that as usual you do not integrate what I wrote in your response. It's not clear at all that you understood what I wrote and you didn't address it.
We could go on posting where I quote portions of your text and react directly to those, while you restate your positions and don't interact with what I write.

But why should I waste my time?

Perhaps someone else will see my objectiion and interact with it.

And just for fun I put your assertions into two different AIs and they agreed with my criticism about the realist/antirealist raw experience reversal I mentioned above. And they were very specific and clear about it.

Where I see any "what is 1+1 =?" [i.e. easy to understand question or challenge] and it is very critical to my stance, I will definitely respond and counter it.
My stance is I will NEVER to leave any counter to my POV unchallenged.

If I don't see such critical "what is 1+1 =?", that is your bad communication and I had not understood it.
Note I have highlighted many times where you misinterpret my points and if you ask or raise issues based on those misinterpretation, it is obvious I cannot understand it; so, you're to be blamed.
If you ask AI based on those misinterpretations, then it is GIGO [garbage in garbage out].

So far, whatever counter you [& Atla] give from AI, I have corrected the AI's answer and that I am right.