The abstraction in observation

The first steps on the ladder of abstractions are completely unconscious. Of all of the multi-myriad of the detail of Bessie the cow, or any item in the real world, our senses observe only the tiniest fraction. For example, there is a lot more to the total spectrum of light impressions than the colors we observe. The same goes for audible signals, as any dog or cat owner knows.

The signals received by our limited sensory systems are subsequently sent to the nervous system for further processing. It is well-known that this system is geared purely to those signals that the human system has learned to be essential to its survival. Sometimes this process of selection is a part of the observation process itself, as is the case with the eye that has special circuitry to detect motion, and gives priority to signals from this circuitry. It goes without saying that this bias towards certain facts in the real world is an ill boding for the capacities to observe things in the real world that fall outside of these first-rank categories.

From this awareness one could draw drastic conclusions, for example that it isn't possible to get any realistic picture of the world (reality cynicism), that any picture is derogatory and should therefore not be attempted (mysticism ), or that what we observe isn't any reality at all but a construct of our mind (solipsism ). Of course, here we are not bothered by problems, and will continue trying to address them.

The second level is where the sensory impressions enter that part of the brain that also houses consciousness. Recent research on people with very localized brain damage has shown that it is almost certain that the evaluation of these sensory impressions goes prior to consciousness, and so goes a lot of the subsequent reactions. So we are dealing with at least two more levels, and two transitions. It is highly likely that each of these transitions also deforms the sensory information.

An example of these distortions at the transition from observation to consciousness is the history of men’s thought about how things move. As already stated, the detection of movement is highly important for our survival. Yet the conscious thought on this were completely erroneous until about the 17th century. There are pictures illustrating how one thought a cannonball, or any thrown object, moves. It shows a straight line until the top of the trajectory, after which it fall vertically to the ground. This picture corresponds to how one thought an object moves, not to how it moves. This while anyone can take a rock, or a bow and arrow, aim at a target, and get reasonably to very close to this target, depending on the talent and practice of the person. This getting pretty close to the target is possible only through the innate knowledge the body has of how the rock or the arrow moves, which is more or less a parabola.

So even at the first levels of abstraction, from outside reality to the sensory impressions inputted into consciousness, there are already many pitfalls in the individual brain. The way physics has circumvented these pitfalls is by inter-subjectivity, by comparing the results obtained by different individuals, and trying to eliminate the individual internal noise and distil the outside reality. The principal tool for this is to express the sensory impressions into numbers, since numbers are known to be identical for everyone. Turning sensory impressions into numbers is known as experimentation: instead of just looking to the cannonball, one determines its position at different times, in height and distance along the ground, expressed e.g. in meters . The essence of this physical experimental method has not changed since, and will probably never change.

The arguments above are applied to the process of observation, i.e. the first stages of the ladder of abstractions. However, they are valid for any of its stages. Any step to more abstraction may lead to distortions, and so it has to be checked against reality by referring back to the previous level. This goes even more so if one starts formulating a rule at a higher level of abstraction. The “this” and “that” in the rule are abstractions and may have distortions, so the conclusion to be drawn from applying a rule to “this” and “that” is even more prone to distortion.

The conclusion is that any rule at any level of abstraction has to be tested at some time or another by going down the ladder towards the level of reality. Any failure to do so turns any form of rule, theory, or discussion into the realm of fantasy. And while fantasy is interesting as an amusement of the mind, it is not suitable as a way to organize society.


Go to the previous article in this series here , General semantics list here , all articles here , site home here .