Difference between revisions of "Abstraction" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
(New page: {{dablink|This article is about the concept of ''abstraction'' in general. For other uses, see abstraction (disambiguation).}} <!-- <div style="float:right; margin-left: 1em; margin-b...)
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{dablink|This article is about the concept of ''abstraction'' in general.  For other uses, see [[abstraction (disambiguation)]].}}
+
{{Paid}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Copyedited}}
<!--
+
'''Abstraction''' is the process of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a black-and-white leather soccer ball to a ball retains only the information on general attributes and behavior of a ball. Similarly, abstracting “happiness” to an “emotional state” reduces the amount of information conveyed about the emotional state. Abstraction typically results in the reduction of a complex idea to a simpler concept or a general domain, which allows the understanding of a variety of specific scenarios in terms of certain basic ideas. Abstract things are sometimes defined as those things that do not exist in reality or exist only as sensory experience, but there is a difficulty in deciding which things "exist" in reality. It is difficult to reach agreement on whether concepts like ''God,'' ''the number three,'' and ''goodness'' are real, abstract, or both.
<div style="float:right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
 
__TOC__
 
</div>
 
—>
 
'''Abstraction''' is the process of [[generalization]] by reducing the [[information content]] of a [[concept]] or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only [[information]] which is relevant for a particular [[purpose]]. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to a [[ball]] retains only the information on general ball [[attributes]] and [[behaviour]]. Similarly, abstracting [[happiness]] to an [[emotional state]] reduces the amount of information conveyed about the emotional state.
 
  
==Complexity reduction==
+
Abstraction in [[philosophy]] is the process of forming a concept by identifying common features among a group of individuals, or by ignoring unique aspects of these individuals. The notion of abstraction is important to understanding some philosophical controversies surrounding [[empiricism]] and the [[universals|problem of universals]]. ''[[Metonymy]]'', in [[linguistics]], refers to the use of the same sorts of nouns that signify concrete objects to refer to abstract concepts, and is found in many languages, including English. In the psychology of Carl Jung, abstraction refers to the processing of a particular experience exclusively by one of the following four psychological functions: sensation, [[intuition]], feeling, and thinking—which would normally function in relation to each other.
Abstraction typically results in [[complexity reduction]] leading to a simpler [[conceptualization]] of a [[domain of discourse|domain]] in order to facilitate processing or understanding of many specific [[scenarios]] in a [[generic]] way.
 
  
 
==Thought process==
 
==Thought process==
In [[philosophy|philosophical terminology]], ''abstraction'' is the [[Thinking|thought process]] wherein [[idea]]s are distanced from [[Object (philosophy)|object]]s.  
+
In [[philosophy|philosophical terminology]], ''abstraction'' is the thought process wherein ideas are distanced from objects.  
  
Abstraction uses a [[strategy]] of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective [[communication]] about things in the abstract requires an [[intuitive]] or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient.
+
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification which ignores formerly concrete details or leaves them ambiguous, vague, or undefined. Effective communication about things in the abstract requires an [[intuition|intuitive]] or common experience between persons wishing to communicate.
  
[[Image:JerryFelix.JPG|right|thumb|100px|Cat on Mat ''(picture 1)'']]  
+
[[Image:JerryFelix.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Cat on Mat ''(Picture 1)'']]  
For example, many different things can be [[red]]. Likewise, many things sit on surfaces (as in ''picture 1'', to the right).  The property of ''[[red]]ness'' and the [[Relation of Ideas|relation]] ''[[Sitting|sitting-on]]'' are therefore abstractions of those objects. Specifically, the conceptual diagram ''graph 1'' identifies only three boxes, two ellipses, and four arrows (and their nine labels), whereas the ''picture 1'' shows much more pictorial detail, with the scores of implied relationships as implicit in the picture rather than with the nine explicit details in the graph.
+
For example, many different things can be red. Likewise, many things sit on surfaces (as in ''Picture 1'', to the right).  The property of ''redness'' and the spatial relation of ''sitting-on'' are therefore abstractions of those objects. Compare the photo at the right with the conceptual diagram below. The conceptual diagram ''Graph 1'' identifies only three boxes, two ellipses, and four arrows (and their nine labels), whereas the image ''picture 1'' shows many more visual details, with scores of implicit relationships.  ''Graph 1'' details some explicit relationships between the objects of the diagram. For example the arrow between the ''agent'' and ''CAT:Elsie'' depicts an example of an ''is-a'' relationship, as does the arrow between the ''location'' and the ''MAT''. The arrows between the [[gerund]] ''SITTING'' and the nouns ''agent'' and ''location'' express the diagram's basic relationship; ''"agent is SITTING on location"''; the agent, ''Elsie,'' is an instance of ''CAT''.
  
''Graph 1'' details some explicit relationships between the objects of the diagram. For example the arrow between the ''agent'' and ''CAT:Elsie'' depicts an example of an ''[[is-a]]'' relationship, as does the arrow between the ''location'' and the ''MAT''. The arrows between the [[gerund]] ''SITTING'' and the [[noun]]s ''agent'' and ''location'' express the [[diagram]]'s basic relationship; ''"agent is SITTING on location"''; ''Elsie'' is an instance of ''CAT''.
+
[[Image:Cat-on-mat.GIF|thumb|300px|Conceptual diagram for A Cat sitting on the Mat ''(Graph 1)'']]
  
[[Image:Cat-on-mat.GIF|thumb|250px|[[Conceptual graph]] for A Cat sitting on the Mat ''(graph 1)'']]
+
Although the description ''sitting-on'' (Graph 1) is more abstract than the graphic image of a cat sitting on a mat (Picture 1), the delineation of abstract things from concrete things is somewhat ambiguous; this ambiguity or vagueness is characteristic of abstraction. Something as simple as a newspaper might be specified to six levels, as in Douglas R. Hofstadter's illustration of that ambiguity, with a progression from abstract to concrete in ''Gödel, Escher, Bach'' (1979):
Although the description ''sitting-on'' (graph 1) is more abstract than the graphic image of a cat sitting on a mat (picture 1), the delineation of abstract things from concrete things is somewhat ambiguous; this ambiguity or vagueness is characteristic of abstraction. Thus something as simple as a newspaper might be specified to six levels, as in [[Douglas R. Hofstadter]]'s illustration of that ambiguity, with a progression from abstract to concrete in ''[[Gödel, Escher, Bach]]'' (1979):
 
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
 
(1) a publication
 
(1) a publication
Line 30: Line 23:
 
:::::(6) my copy of the May 18 edition of the ''Chronicle'' as it was when I first picked it up (as contrasted with my copy as it was a few days later: in my fireplace, burning)
 
:::::(6) my copy of the May 18 edition of the ''Chronicle'' as it was when I first picked it up (as contrasted with my copy as it was a few days later: in my fireplace, burning)
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
An abstraction can thus encapsulate each of these levels of detail with no loss of generality. But perhaps a detective or philosopher/scientist/engineer might seek to learn about some thing, at progressively deeper levels of detail, to solve a crime or a puzzle.
+
An abstraction can be an encapsulation of any of these levels of detail and still be considered general. A detective, writer, philosopher, scientist, or engineer might seek to learn about the specifics of some thing at progressively greater levels of detail in order to solve a crime or a problem.
  
 
==Referents==
 
==Referents==
Abstractions sometimes have ambiguous [[referent]]s; for example, "[[happiness]]" (when used as an abstraction) can refer to as many things as there are people and events or [[being|states of being]] which make them happy. Likewise, "[[architecture]]" refers not only to the design of safe, functional buildings, but also to elements of creation and [[innovation]] which aim at elegant solutions to [[construction]] problems, to the use of space, and at its best, to the attempt to evoke an [[emotion|emotional response]] in the builders, owners, viewers and users of the building.<!--See discussion pages 3 to 12 in Eugene Raskin, ''Architecturally Speaking, 2nd edition'', a Delta book, Dell (1966), trade paperback, 129 pages —>
+
Abstractions sometimes have ambiguous referents; for example, "happiness" (when used as an abstraction) can refer to as many things as there are people and events or states of being which make them happy. "[[Architecture]]" refers not only to the design of safe, functional buildings, but also to elements of creation and innovation which aim at elegant solutions to construction problems, to the use of space, and at its best, to the attempt to evoke an emotional response from the builders, owners, users, and even observers of the building.<!--See discussion pages 3 to 12 in Eugene Raskin, ''Architecturally Speaking, 2nd edition'', a Delta book, Dell (1966), trade paperback, 129 pages —>
  
 
===Instantiation===
 
===Instantiation===
Things that do not exist at any particular place and time are often considered abstract. By contrast, instances, or members, of such an abstract thing might exist in many different places and times. Those abstract things are then said to be ''multiply instantiated'', in the sense of ''picture 1'', ''picture 2'', etc., shown above.
+
Things that do not exist at any particular place and time are often considered abstract. Unique instances, or members of an abstract class or thing, might exist in many different places and times. That abstract thing is then said to be ''multiply instantiated.'' For example, the abstract concept “picture” is instantiated in ''Picture 1'' above, and wherever else a specific picture is displayed.
  
It is not sufficient, however, to define ''abstract'' ideas as those that can be instantiated and to define ''abstraction'' as the movement in the opposite direction to instantiation. Doing so would make the concepts 'cat' and 'telephone' abstract ideas since despite their varying appearances, a particular cat or a particular telephone is an instance of the concept "cat" or the concept "telephone". Although the concepts "cat" and "telephone" are ''abstractions'', they are not ''abstract'' in the sense of the objects in ''graph 1'' above.  
+
It is not sufficient, however, simply to define ''abstract'' ideas as ideas that can be instantiated, and to define ''abstraction'' as the movement away from instantiation towards the idea. Doing so would make the concepts 'cat' and 'telephone' abstract ideas since despite their varying appearances, a particular cat or a particular telephone is an instance of the concept "cat" or the concept "telephone." Although the concepts "cat" and "telephone" are ''abstractions,'' they still belong to concrete material (physical) objects.
  
<!-- What is the following paragraph trying to clarify? —>
+
===Definition by physicality===
We might look at other graphs, in a progression from ''cat'' to ''mammal'' to ''animal'', and see that ''animal'' is more abstract than ''mammal''; but on the other hand ''mammal'' is a harder idea to express, certainly in relation to ''[[marsupial]]''.
+
A physical object (a possible referent of a concept or word) is considered ''concrete'' (not abstract) if it is a ''particular individual'' that occupies a particular place and time.
 +
 
 +
Abstract things are sometimes defined as those things that do not exist in reality or exist only as sensory experience, like the color red. That definition, however, suffers from the difficulty of deciding which things exist in reality. It is difficult to reach agreement on  whether concepts like ''God,'' ''the number three,'' and ''goodness'' are real, abstract, or both.
 +
 
 +
An approach to resolving such a difficulty is to use the grammatical terms “subject” and ''predicates.'' Statements about whether a thing is real, abstract, concrete, or possesses a particular property (such as ''good'') then become propositions about predicates. The original object remains the subject, while the person conducting the investigation must evaluate each of the propositions to determine whether they are appropriate and correct.  In ''Graph 1'' above, the graphical relationships, such as the arrows joining boxes and ellipses could be said to denote predicates. A conceptual graph depicting different levels of abstraction would show multiple tiers of boxes or ellipses, with arrows pointing up or down to boxes on higher or lower tiers.
  
===Physicality===
+
==Concept formation in philosophy==
A physical object (a possible referent of a concept or word) is considered ''concrete'' (not abstract) if it is a ''particular individual'' that occupies a particular place and time.
+
Abstraction in [[philosophy]] is the process of forming a concept by identifying common features among a group of individuals, or by ignoring spacio-temporal aspects of these individuals. The notion of abstraction is important to understanding some philosophical controversies surrounding [[empiricism]] and the [[universals|problem of universals]]. It has also recently become popular in formal logic as predicate abstraction.
  
Abstract things are sometimes defined as those things that do not exist in [[reality]] or exist only as sensory experience, like the color [[red]]. That definition, however, suffers from the difficulty of deciding which things are real (i.e. which things exist in reality). For example, it is difficult to agree to whether concepts like ''God'', ''the number three'', and ''goodness'' are real, abstract, or both.
+
[[John Locke]] supported the existence of abstraction in ''Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' (paragraphs 6ff, 98, 119 and 125), identifying the capacity to abstract as the quality which distinguished humans from animals and made spoken language possible.  
  
An approach to resolving such difficulty is to use ''[[Predicate (grammar)|predicate]]s'' as a general term for whether things are variously real, abstract, concrete, or of a particular property (e.g. ''good''). Questions about the properties of things are then [[propositions]] about predicates, which propositions remain to be evaluated by the investigator. In the ''graph 1'' above, the graphical relationships like the arrows joining boxes and ellipses might denote predicates. Different levels of abstraction might be denoted by a progression of arrows joining boxes or ellipses in multiple rows, where the arrows point from one row to another, in a series of other graphs, say graph 2, etc.
+
In ''The Principle of Human Knowledge'', [[Berkeley]] argued that the concept of an abstract idea is incoherent because it requires both the inclusion and the exclusion of one and the same property. An abstract idea would have to be general and precise at the same time, general enough to include all instances of the concept, yet precise enough to exclude all non-instances. He used the example of the abstract idea of a triangle, which “is neither oblique nor rectangular, equilateral nor scalenon, but all and none of these at once.” <ref>Berkeley, George, ''The Principles of Human Knowledge'', Introduction, paragraph 13.</ref>
  
==Abstraction used in philosophy==
+
===Ontology===
Abstraction in [[philosophy]] is the process (or, to some, the alleged process) in [[concept-formation]] of recognizing some set of common features in [[individual]]s, and on that basis forming a concept of that feature. The notion of abstraction is important to understanding some philosophical controversies surrounding [[empiricism]] and the [[problem of universals]]. It has also recently become popular in formal logic under [[predicate abstraction]].  Another philosophical tool for discussion of abstraction is [[Thought space]].
+
The way that physical objects, like rocks and trees, have being differs from the way that properties of abstract concepts or relations have being, for example the way the concrete, particular, individual cat and mat depicted in ''Picture 1'' exist differs from the way in which the concepts illustrated in ''Graph 1'' exist. In ontology, the word "abstract" applies to properties and relations that, by themselves, may not exist in space or time, but do potentially exist as individual instances in many different places and times.
  
===Ontological status===
+
Some [[philosophy|philosophies]] refer to ''tropes'' (individual instances of abstract properties) as ''abstract particulars''. For example, the particular redness of a particular apple is an ''abstract particular''.
The way that physical objects, like rocks and trees, have [[Category of being|being]] differs from the way that properties of abstract concepts or relations have being, for example the way the [[Concrete (philosophy)|concrete]], [[particular]], [[individual]]s pictured in ''picture 1'' exist differs from the way the concepts illustrated in ''graph 1'' exist. That difference accounts for the [[ontology|ontological]] usefulness of the word "abstract". The word applies to properties and relations to mark the fact that, if they exist, they do not exist in space or time, but that instances of them can exist, potentially in many different places and times.
 
  
Perhaps confusingly, some [[philosophy|philosophies]] refer to ''[[trope]]s'' (instances of properties) as ''[[abstract particular]]s''. E.g., the particular [[red]]ness of a particular [[apple]] is an ''abstract particular''.
+
=== Linguistics===
 +
'''Reification''', (also called ''hypostatization''), refers to the treatment of an abstract concept, such as "society" or "technology" as if it were a concrete object, might be considered a logical fallacy. In [[linguistics]] this is called ''metonymy'', in which abstract concepts are referred to using the same sorts of nouns that signify concrete objects. Metonymy is found in many languages, including English, and can blur the distinction between abstract and concrete things. An example is this quote, given in 1805 by [[Lord Horatio Nelson|Horatio Nelson]] at the ''Battle of Trafalgar'': "England expects that every man will do his duty."
  
===In linguistics===
+
Words denoting abstract concepts are very important for the writing of literature, philosophy and poetry. The ancient Japanese language contained very few abstract words; Japanese scholars adapted Chinese words for these concepts and proceeded to create a rich and varied body of literature.
[[Reification]], also called ''hypostatization'', might be considered a [[logical fallacy]] whenever an abstract concept, such as "society" or "technology" is treated as if it were a concrete object. In [[linguistics]] this is called ''[[metonymy]]'', in which abstract concepts are referred to using the same sorts of [[noun]]s that signify concrete objects. Metonymy is an aspect of the English language and of other languages. It can blur the distinction between abstract and concrete things:
 
:'''1805''': [[Horatio Nelson]] (''[[Battle of Trafalgar]]'') - "[[England expects that every man will do his duty]]"
 
  
 
===Compression===
 
===Compression===
<!-- Is this section common knowledge or original research? —>
+
An abstraction can be construed as a process of mapping multiple different pieces of constituent data to a single piece of abstract data based on similarities in the constituent data, for example many different physical cats map to the abstraction "CAT."  This conceptual scheme emphasizes the inherent equality of both constituent and abstract data, thus avoiding problems arising from the distinction between "abstract" and "concrete."  In this sense the process of abstraction entails the recognition of similarities among objects and the process of associating these objects with an abstraction (which is itself an object).  
An abstraction can be seen as a process of mapping multiple different pieces of [[constituent]] data to a single piece of abstract data based on similarities in the constituent data, for example many different physical cats map to the abstraction "CAT". This conceptual scheme emphasizes the inherent equality of both constituent and abstract data, thus avoiding problems arising from the distinction between "abstract" and "[[Concrete (philosophy)|concrete]]". In this sense the process of abstraction entails the identification of similarities between objects and the process of associating these objects with an abstraction (which is itself an object).  
+
''Picture 1'' above illustrates, among other concepts,  the concrete relationship "Cat sits on Mat." Chains of abstractions can be constructed, moving from the neural impulses arising from sensory perception to basic abstractions such as color or shape, to experiential abstractions such as a specific catto semantic abstractions such as the "idea" of a CAT, and to classes of objects such as "mammals" and even categories such as "object" as opposed to "action." This conceptual scheme entails no specific hierarchical taxonomy, only a progressive relation of detail to a single abstract object.
:For example, ''picture 1'' above illustrates the concrete relationship "Cat sits on Mat".
 
Chains of abstractions can therefore be constructed moving from neural impulses arising from sensory [[perception]] to basic abstractions such as color or [[shape]] to experiential abstractions such as a specific cat to [[semantic]] abstractions such as the "idea" of a CAT to classes of objects such as "mammals" and even categories such as "object" as opposed to "action".
 
:For example, ''graph 1'' above expresses the abstraction "agent sits on location".
 
  
This conceptual scheme entails no specific [[hierarchical]] [[taxonomy]] (such as the one mentioned involving cats and mammals), only a progressive [[compression (disambiguation)|compression]] of detail.
+
==Neurology of abstraction==
 
+
Some research into the human [[brain]] suggests that the left and right hemispheres differ in their handling of abstraction. For example, one meta-analysis reviewing human brain lesions has shown a left hemisphere bias during the usage of tools to perform specific tasks.
==The neurology of abstraction==
 
Some research into the human [[brain]] suggests that the left and right hemispheres differ in their handling of abstraction. For example, one meta-analysis reviewing human brain lesions has shown a left hemisphere bias   during tool usage  
 
 
<ref>James W. Lewis "Cortical Networks Related to Human Use of Tools" '''12''' (3): 211-231 ''The Neuroscientist'' (June 1, 2006). </ref>.
 
<ref>James W. Lewis "Cortical Networks Related to Human Use of Tools" '''12''' (3): 211-231 ''The Neuroscientist'' (June 1, 2006). </ref>.
  
 
==Abstraction in art==
 
==Abstraction in art==
Most typically ''abstraction'' is used in the arts as a [[synonym]] of [[abstract art]] in general. It can, however, refer to any object or image which has been distilled from the real world, or indeed another work.  In the truest sense, abstract art is not really abstract.
+
(see [[Abstract art]])
  
The artist [[Robert Stark]] wrote:
+
''Abstraction'' is used in the arts synonymously with the phrase “[[Abstract art|abstract art]].” It can, however, refer to any object or image which has been distilled from the real world, or indeed, another work of art. In the truest sense, abstract art is not really abstract.
 
 
:"Ten years after abandoning formal landscape painting to explore the more direct act of freely applying paint to a surface without a representational motive, I have developed a new vocabulary; light and dark, warm and cool, making marks, brush-strokes like heart-rhythms. Every day is a test of each painting's ability to stand on its own. Each painting is subject to being changed, to being reworked or scraped and repainted as long as it remains in the studio. Where I often used to spend weeks on a painting, attempting to 'make a picture,' now my concerns are more about the energy of light, the mass of space, the emotions of shadows."
 
 
 
:"I want the painting to meet the viewer somewhere in the middle, where the viewer brings his own experiences to bear in understanding and feeling what he is seeing. I want my paintings to achieve the complexity and density of poetry or of a symphony, to build suggestive layers, implicit felt meaning, not merely to be entertaining bit of color to seduce the eye. I want my paintings to be accessible to children as well as adults, and to be so simply and directly painted that it shows the act of painting for the joy and excitement of it."
 
  
 
==Abstraction in psychology==
 
==Abstraction in psychology==
 
+
[[Carl Jung|Jung's]] definition of abstraction broadened its scope beyond the thinking process to include four mutually exclusive psychological functions: sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking which, together, would normally form a structural totality of experience. According to Jung, abstraction operates in one of these opposing functions when the simultaneous influence of the three other functions is excluded, along with other irrelevancies such as emotion. Abstraction requires selective use of one of these abilities in the psyche; the opposite of abstraction is called "concretism." ''Abstraction'' is one of Jung's 57 definitions in Chapter XI of ''Psychological Types''.  
'''[[Carl Jung|Jung's]] definition of abstraction''' broadened its scope beyond the thinking process to include exactly four mutually exclusive, opposing complementary psychological functions: sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking. Together they form a structural totality of the differentiating abstraction process. Abstraction operates in one of these opposing functions when it excludes the simultaneous influence of the other functions and other irrelevancies such as emotion. Abstraction requires selective use of this structural split of abilities in the psyche. The opposite of abstraction is [[concretism (psychology)|concretism]]. ''Abstraction'' is one of Jung's 57 definitions in Chapter XI of ''[[Psychological Types]]''.    
 
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
There is an abstract ''thinking'', just as there is abstract ''feeling'', ''sensation'' and ''intuition''. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities ... Abstract feeling does the same with ... its feeling-values. ... I put abstract feelings on the same level as abstract thoughts. ... Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous ''sensation'' and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic ''intuition''. (Jung, [1921] (1971):par. 678).
+
There is an abstract ''thinking'', just as there is abstract ''feeling'', ''sensation'' and ''intuition''. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities… Abstract feeling does the same with… its feeling-values. …I put abstract feelings on the same level as abstract thoughts. …Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous ''sensation'' and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic ''intuition''. (Jung, [1921] (1971): par. 678).
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
==See also==
+
==Notes ==
{{col-begin}}
+
<references/> 
{{col-break}}
+
 
* [[Abstract art]]
+
==References==
* [[Abstraction (computer science)]]
+
*Raskin, E. (1954). Architecturally speaking. [New York]: Reinhold.
* [[Abstraction (mathematics)]]
+
*''The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.'' (1996). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395448956
* [[Abstract structure]]
+
* Jung, C.G. [1921] (1971). ''Psychological Types'', Collected Works, Volume 6, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691018138
* [[Abstract (summary)]]
+
*Priest, Stephen. (1990).''British Empiricists: Hobbes to Ayer''. New York: Penguin Paperback Books. ISBN 0140125000
* [[Abstract interpretation]]
+
*Quinton, A. (1973). ''The nature of things.'' London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ISBN 0710074530 ISBN 9780710074539
{{col-break}}
+
*Weinberg, J. R. (1965). ''Abstraction, relation, and induction.'' University of Wisconsin Press.
* [[Charles Peirce]]
 
* [[Gottlob Frege]]
 
* [[Hypostatic abstraction]]
 
* [[portal:thinking#Topics related to Thinking|List of thinking-related topics]]
 
* [[Model (abstract)]]
 
* [[Ontology]]
 
* [[Prescisive abstraction]]
 
{{col-end}}
 
* [[Object of the mind]]
 
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
{{wiktionarypar|abstraction}}
+
All links retrieved August 14, 2012.
 +
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Abstract Objects].
 +
*[http://originresearch.com/sd/sd1.cfm Discussion at The Well concerning Abstraction hierarchy].
 +
===General Philosophy Sources===
 +
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 +
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 +
*[http://www.epistemelinks.com/  Philosophy Sources on Internet EpistemeLinks]
 +
*[http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/gpi/index.htm Guide to Philosophy on the Internet]
 +
*[http://www.bu.edu/wcp/PaidArch.html Paideia Project Online]
 +
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/ Project Gutenberg]
  
* [http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/frege.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Gottlob Frege]
 
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Abstract Objects]
 
* [http://originresearch.com/sd/sd1.cfm Discussion at The Well concerning Abstraction hierarchy]
 
* [http://www.cs.hmc.edu/claremont/keller/webBook/ch01/sec01.html The Purpose of Abstraction]
 
  
==References==
+
[[category:Philosophy and religion]]
<references/> 
+
[[Category:philosophy]]
* Eugene Raskin, ''Architecturally Speaking, 2nd edition'', a Delta book, Dell (1966), trade paperback, 129 pages
 
* ''The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition'', Houghton Mifflin (1992), hardcover, 2140 pages, ISBN 0-395-44895-6
 
* Jung, C.G. [1921] (1971). ''Psychological Types'', Collected Works, Volume 6, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01813-8.
 
  
[[Category:Abstraction| ]]
 
[[Category:Philosophical terminology]]
 
[[Category:Thought]]
 
  
[[ar:تجريد]]
 
[[be:Абстракцыя]]
 
[[bs:Apstrakcija]]
 
[[cs:Abstrakce]]
 
[[da:Abstraktion]]
 
[[de:Abstraktion]]
 
[[es:Abstracción]]
 
[[eo:Abstraktado]]
 
[[fa:تجرید]]
 
[[fr:Abstraction]]
 
[[gl:Abstracción]]
 
[[ia:Abstraction]]
 
[[it:Astrazione]]
 
[[he:הפשטה]]
 
[[hu:Absztrakció]]
 
[[mk:Апстракција]]
 
[[nl:Abstractie]]
 
[[ja:抽象化]]
 
[[pl:Abstrakcja (filozofia)]]
 
[[pt:Abstração]]
 
[[ru:Абстракция]]
 
[[sk:Abstrakcia]]
 
[[sr:Апстрактно мишљење]]
 
[[sv:Abstraktion]]
 
[[th:นามธรรม]]
 
[[tr:Soyutlama]]
 
[[uk:Абстракція]]
 
[[zh:抽象化]]
 
 
{{Credit|102860342}}
 
{{Credit|102860342}}

Revision as of 23:43, 14 August 2012

Abstraction is the process of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a black-and-white leather soccer ball to a ball retains only the information on general attributes and behavior of a ball. Similarly, abstracting “happiness” to an “emotional state” reduces the amount of information conveyed about the emotional state. Abstraction typically results in the reduction of a complex idea to a simpler concept or a general domain, which allows the understanding of a variety of specific scenarios in terms of certain basic ideas. Abstract things are sometimes defined as those things that do not exist in reality or exist only as sensory experience, but there is a difficulty in deciding which things "exist" in reality. It is difficult to reach agreement on whether concepts like God, the number three, and goodness are real, abstract, or both.

Abstraction in philosophy is the process of forming a concept by identifying common features among a group of individuals, or by ignoring unique aspects of these individuals. The notion of abstraction is important to understanding some philosophical controversies surrounding empiricism and the problem of universals. Metonymy, in linguistics, refers to the use of the same sorts of nouns that signify concrete objects to refer to abstract concepts, and is found in many languages, including English. In the psychology of Carl Jung, abstraction refers to the processing of a particular experience exclusively by one of the following four psychological functions: sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking—which would normally function in relation to each other.

Thought process

In philosophical terminology, abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas are distanced from objects.

Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification which ignores formerly concrete details or leaves them ambiguous, vague, or undefined. Effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between persons wishing to communicate.

Cat on Mat (Picture 1)

For example, many different things can be red. Likewise, many things sit on surfaces (as in Picture 1, to the right). The property of redness and the spatial relation of sitting-on are therefore abstractions of those objects. Compare the photo at the right with the conceptual diagram below. The conceptual diagram Graph 1 identifies only three boxes, two ellipses, and four arrows (and their nine labels), whereas the image picture 1 shows many more visual details, with scores of implicit relationships. Graph 1 details some explicit relationships between the objects of the diagram. For example the arrow between the agent and CAT:Elsie depicts an example of an is-a relationship, as does the arrow between the location and the MAT. The arrows between the gerund SITTING and the nouns agent and location express the diagram's basic relationship; "agent is SITTING on location"; the agent, Elsie, is an instance of CAT.

File:Cat-on-mat.GIF
Conceptual diagram for A Cat sitting on the Mat (Graph 1)

Although the description sitting-on (Graph 1) is more abstract than the graphic image of a cat sitting on a mat (Picture 1), the delineation of abstract things from concrete things is somewhat ambiguous; this ambiguity or vagueness is characteristic of abstraction. Something as simple as a newspaper might be specified to six levels, as in Douglas R. Hofstadter's illustration of that ambiguity, with a progression from abstract to concrete in Gödel, Escher, Bach (1979):

(1) a publication

(2) a newspaper
(3) The San Francisco Chronicle
(4) the May 18 edition of the Chronicle
(5) my copy of the May 18 edition of the Chronicle
(6) my copy of the May 18 edition of the Chronicle as it was when I first picked it up (as contrasted with my copy as it was a few days later: in my fireplace, burning)

An abstraction can be an encapsulation of any of these levels of detail and still be considered general. A detective, writer, philosopher, scientist, or engineer might seek to learn about the specifics of some thing at progressively greater levels of detail in order to solve a crime or a problem.

Referents

Abstractions sometimes have ambiguous referents; for example, "happiness" (when used as an abstraction) can refer to as many things as there are people and events or states of being which make them happy. "Architecture" refers not only to the design of safe, functional buildings, but also to elements of creation and innovation which aim at elegant solutions to construction problems, to the use of space, and at its best, to the attempt to evoke an emotional response from the builders, owners, users, and even observers of the building.

Instantiation

Things that do not exist at any particular place and time are often considered abstract. Unique instances, or members of an abstract class or thing, might exist in many different places and times. That abstract thing is then said to be multiply instantiated. For example, the abstract concept “picture” is instantiated in Picture 1 above, and wherever else a specific picture is displayed.

It is not sufficient, however, simply to define abstract ideas as ideas that can be instantiated, and to define abstraction as the movement away from instantiation towards the idea. Doing so would make the concepts 'cat' and 'telephone' abstract ideas since despite their varying appearances, a particular cat or a particular telephone is an instance of the concept "cat" or the concept "telephone." Although the concepts "cat" and "telephone" are abstractions, they still belong to concrete material (physical) objects.

Definition by physicality

A physical object (a possible referent of a concept or word) is considered concrete (not abstract) if it is a particular individual that occupies a particular place and time.

Abstract things are sometimes defined as those things that do not exist in reality or exist only as sensory experience, like the color red. That definition, however, suffers from the difficulty of deciding which things exist in reality. It is difficult to reach agreement on whether concepts like God, the number three, and goodness are real, abstract, or both.

An approach to resolving such a difficulty is to use the grammatical terms “subject” and predicates. Statements about whether a thing is real, abstract, concrete, or possesses a particular property (such as good) then become propositions about predicates. The original object remains the subject, while the person conducting the investigation must evaluate each of the propositions to determine whether they are appropriate and correct. In Graph 1 above, the graphical relationships, such as the arrows joining boxes and ellipses could be said to denote predicates. A conceptual graph depicting different levels of abstraction would show multiple tiers of boxes or ellipses, with arrows pointing up or down to boxes on higher or lower tiers.

Concept formation in philosophy

Abstraction in philosophy is the process of forming a concept by identifying common features among a group of individuals, or by ignoring spacio-temporal aspects of these individuals. The notion of abstraction is important to understanding some philosophical controversies surrounding empiricism and the problem of universals. It has also recently become popular in formal logic as predicate abstraction.

John Locke supported the existence of abstraction in Essay Concerning Human Understanding (paragraphs 6ff, 98, 119 and 125), identifying the capacity to abstract as the quality which distinguished humans from animals and made spoken language possible.

In The Principle of Human Knowledge, Berkeley argued that the concept of an abstract idea is incoherent because it requires both the inclusion and the exclusion of one and the same property. An abstract idea would have to be general and precise at the same time, general enough to include all instances of the concept, yet precise enough to exclude all non-instances. He used the example of the abstract idea of a triangle, which “is neither oblique nor rectangular, equilateral nor scalenon, but all and none of these at once.” [1]

Ontology

The way that physical objects, like rocks and trees, have being differs from the way that properties of abstract concepts or relations have being, for example the way the concrete, particular, individual cat and mat depicted in Picture 1 exist differs from the way in which the concepts illustrated in Graph 1 exist. In ontology, the word "abstract" applies to properties and relations that, by themselves, may not exist in space or time, but do potentially exist as individual instances in many different places and times.

Some philosophies refer to tropes (individual instances of abstract properties) as abstract particulars. For example, the particular redness of a particular apple is an abstract particular.

Linguistics

Reification, (also called hypostatization), refers to the treatment of an abstract concept, such as "society" or "technology" as if it were a concrete object, might be considered a logical fallacy. In linguistics this is called metonymy, in which abstract concepts are referred to using the same sorts of nouns that signify concrete objects. Metonymy is found in many languages, including English, and can blur the distinction between abstract and concrete things. An example is this quote, given in 1805 by Horatio Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar: "England expects that every man will do his duty."

Words denoting abstract concepts are very important for the writing of literature, philosophy and poetry. The ancient Japanese language contained very few abstract words; Japanese scholars adapted Chinese words for these concepts and proceeded to create a rich and varied body of literature.

Compression

An abstraction can be construed as a process of mapping multiple different pieces of constituent data to a single piece of abstract data based on similarities in the constituent data, for example many different physical cats map to the abstraction "CAT." This conceptual scheme emphasizes the inherent equality of both constituent and abstract data, thus avoiding problems arising from the distinction between "abstract" and "concrete." In this sense the process of abstraction entails the recognition of similarities among objects and the process of associating these objects with an abstraction (which is itself an object). Picture 1 above illustrates, among other concepts, the concrete relationship "Cat sits on Mat." Chains of abstractions can be constructed, moving from the neural impulses arising from sensory perception to basic abstractions such as color or shape, to experiential abstractions such as a specific cat, to semantic abstractions such as the "idea" of a CAT, and to classes of objects such as "mammals" and even categories such as "object" as opposed to "action." This conceptual scheme entails no specific hierarchical taxonomy, only a progressive relation of detail to a single abstract object.

Neurology of abstraction

Some research into the human brain suggests that the left and right hemispheres differ in their handling of abstraction. For example, one meta-analysis reviewing human brain lesions has shown a left hemisphere bias during the usage of tools to perform specific tasks. [2].

Abstraction in art

(see Abstract art)

Abstraction is used in the arts synonymously with the phrase “abstract art.” It can, however, refer to any object or image which has been distilled from the real world, or indeed, another work of art. In the truest sense, abstract art is not really abstract.

Abstraction in psychology

Jung's definition of abstraction broadened its scope beyond the thinking process to include four mutually exclusive psychological functions: sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking which, together, would normally form a structural totality of experience. According to Jung, abstraction operates in one of these opposing functions when the simultaneous influence of the three other functions is excluded, along with other irrelevancies such as emotion. Abstraction requires selective use of one of these abilities in the psyche; the opposite of abstraction is called "concretism." Abstraction is one of Jung's 57 definitions in Chapter XI of Psychological Types.

There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities… Abstract feeling does the same with… its feeling-values. …I put abstract feelings on the same level as abstract thoughts. …Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition. (Jung, [1921] (1971): par. 678).

Notes

  1. Berkeley, George, The Principles of Human Knowledge, Introduction, paragraph 13.
  2. James W. Lewis "Cortical Networks Related to Human Use of Tools" 12 (3): 211-231 The Neuroscientist (June 1, 2006).

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Raskin, E. (1954). Architecturally speaking. [New York]: Reinhold.
  • The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (1996). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395448956
  • Jung, C.G. [1921] (1971). Psychological Types, Collected Works, Volume 6, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691018138
  • Priest, Stephen. (1990).British Empiricists: Hobbes to Ayer. New York: Penguin Paperback Books. ISBN 0140125000
  • Quinton, A. (1973). The nature of things. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ISBN 0710074530 ISBN 9780710074539
  • Weinberg, J. R. (1965). Abstraction, relation, and induction. University of Wisconsin Press.

External links

All links retrieved August 14, 2012.

General Philosophy Sources


Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.