Category talk:Abstraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have a problem with the whole existence of this category. It doesn't make sense. What do these have in common? It's too vague and arbitrary. Revolver 09:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Category:Abstraction is the category referring to those thought processes in which ideas are distanced from objects.
- Natural language satisfies this requirement, so by this definition, ALL of wikipedia belongs to this category. Revolver 09:13, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] You're right. It is a technology.
You're right. A natural language will employ 500 to 50 000 words to describe the universe. And an abstraction is a device to make something more manageable. Since the Hrair limit of 7-9 ideas is our natural limit of cognition, we need additional devices to survive the huge number of terms that Natural language can provide us. Thus, some categories, like number, form etc evolved to address this huge mismatch in our ability to think versus talk. The WP category is a step in this direction. Your thoughts on this problem are welcome. We need all the help we can get. Ancheta Wis 11:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This category (or its position in the hierarchy) looks decidedly POV and confusing to me, especially putting it on the Main Page. --Henrygb 00:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Category makes no sense
This category makes no sense. As Revolver said all natural language is abstraction. I would say all communication is abstraction. What matters is the level of abstraction and the connection between different layers of abstraction. MathMartin 15:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have no opinion regarding whether this makes sense as a category. However there are issues. Some terms or concepts are far more abstrast than others and what they refer to can vary significantly among those who use them. Fred Bauder 13:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fundamental cat
Should this or Cat Thought be the fundamental? Thought makes more sense to my mind. Marskell 15:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
