[abc--> abd] Do "the same thing" to [xyz-->?] Analogies...?

No problem here because there is no reference to the concrete. Yours is a good example of "ipse dixit" - "because I say so". You assert there is a problem. Not given. Only assertion.

It's not a good way of understanding analogies, in fact. There is no "how we form analogies". And consciousness has never been a group project. The predicate is oversimplified to the degree of meaninglessness.

Here's the real problem: given x, which cannot be altered, how do I act? Correct theoretical solution to the concrete problem is formal adaptation to the content. That is intelligence. Next comes volition, will. Post hoc, analogy. Concretes are not and have never been mitigated in a [universal] consciousness. Volition, again, has been omitted by a false front of intelligence.

***

This is an excellent opportunity to show how Earwax and Nonthinks are attempting a rhetorical end-around of reasoning. As I stated above, the abuse originates with oversimplification of the predicate, a shopworn rhetorical trick that extends the argument and thereby hopes to captivate an audience. Earwax directs your attention away from the predicate, which is the real problem, to a nebulous exploration of the inherently nebulous: consciousness. Well, does it strike Earwax or Nonthinks that by necessity consciousness has hitherto offered no evidence that it is capable of explaining ("tell us about") itself? Perhaps, but that spoils their fun...the audience goes home and then they have to answer to me. Listen, Earwax, I'll buy you an icecream cone for your trouble. Really.

****

Nonthinks, the psycho-logical enjoyment of wordy argumentation is all yours. You can also have infinite regress. What a mess. Earwax should be ashamed for getting Nonthinks all stirred up! Still...no problem here.

*****

A bit late, Nonthinks.

Since the alphabet in our language is a limited set of characters, that would tell me to say "xya" however, some things, even less abstract than this, do not possess analogous counterparts.

xya

the first thing that came to mind when you brought the analogy was the last letter is incremented. When faced with the last letter of the alphabet tat can not be incremented further, the next logical step for me was to cycle back around.

i like this question, and i hope people do not read responses before they answer.

If abc becomes abd then by analogy xyz becomes xyA.

If you run out of lower case letters then you start on the upper case ones!

A rose is not a Rose is not a ROSE!

I don't believe there is a single correct answer rather a range of possibly correct answers.

xy1

An analogy is used to illustrate conceptual similarities by comparing a system that is similar of which you already have understanding.

Once the intrinsic qualities are grasped by employing an analogy one finds a context in which to extend their understanding of the finer points of the subject area demonstrated by analogy.

I started the cycle over by employing a different system of symbols.

Your stipulation was irrational, you can hardly fault me for an irrational response.

There is no answer. The alphabet is not cyclical. It begins with"a" and ends with "z". In the first example the third element "c" becomes "d". There is no letter which has a corresponding relationshiop to "z" , so their can be no logical answer.

On the mechanics of analogies:

What are they? a similarity or comparison of two objects or phenomena, which attempts to derive the truth of one thing from the comparison of another thing. That is, the truth of xyz from the occurrence of abc.

How do they work? observation, assumption, and presupposition:

First, in abc (our basis of comparison), the observation is of three components that work in a sequence. The sequence is ASSUMED, not observed, or known.

For your example, the sequence is assumed in increments of 1: a+1 =b, b+1 = c, and so on. To "do the same thing" means "to apply the same formula", which, in turn, means "to apply the same ASSUMPTION."

The assumption could be problematic, if, for example, instead of a formula of [(alphabet component) + (1)], the formula could be [ONE VOWEL and TWO CONSONANTS]. In this case, abc --> abd "does the same thing (is similar in occurence/formula)" to xyz --> xy(CONSONANT). Therefore you could have xyq, xyk, and so on--as long as y (the vowel), is present with any two consonants.

The implication this has on consciousness is this:

That in order to mitigate the chaos of our observable "reality", we must, perforce, ASSUME a pattern and stick with it--otherwise we could structure no pattern from the crude matter of chaos, and this would result in insanity.

If we removed the assumption (and therefore, the ambiguity) from analogy, it would be to say...

...If I were to question the structure of abc, I could first question the formula, then I could question the alphabet even having an order in the first place, and so on, until I nullify all ;premises/categorizations/patterns, which...

..essentially inhibits the very tool I have to derive knowledge or solutions.

The function of analogies is to remove the "noise" of complexity and derive the "meaning" or "formula" (or "pattern", or what it may) from simple comparison and use those simple comparisons to derive "truth" from more complex examples.

What are the mathematical properties of distribution, commutation, inversion, but simple concepts applied to complex problems in order to derive a solution/truth?

In fact, it can be said that language is a tool that attempts to analogize the world into concepts in order to ASSUME that the world has a structure. We may consider this function of language and analogy via the religious notion of the "Afterlife", which can be broken down as such:

... In actuality, one cannot control death. In actuality, (before language), one dies and is dead and that is the conclusion. However, when we analogize death with language--that is, convert actuality into concept--we may see that death "is" eternal life, and that the conclusion lies in our mind, and not in actuality. We can control concepts. We can't control actuality. The parallel mechanism that is analogy always has margin for error/abuse--After all, it requires arbitrary assumption to formulate a pattern.

What happens when analogies become perplexed, as in your example of xyz --> ?. This requires us to assume either a cyclical sequence, or some other formula in order to arrive at a solution (such as xya--cyclical). At any rate, what is the correct answer? What IS the formula? Is there a formula, or are all these "patterns" merely forced interpretation? The pillar or analogy is riddled in ambiguity and requires assumption and presupposition. This is why causality can be confuted and why philosophers can question existence.

VERY interesting question.

********

A fitting (and perhaps educating) response to the impudent and n!ggardly Vonniggis:

The paltry assertion that "there is no problem because there is no reference to the concrete," presupposes the "concrete" and the knowledge that knows it. The argument of mrs. vonnigis is overly confident and self-defeating.

Surely, who can evidence the function of consciousness?

I do not, but I assume its role in analogy. I also openly admit the muddled predicate of all propositions; insofar as epistemology is limited, so do propositions have the possibility of being "nebulous."

Notwithstanding, if, in the human course, one were to abandon all threads of concept that do not make reference "to the concrete," mathematics as we know it would not be.

In fact, there are notional propositions in math that are instrinsically vacuous--that is, they are not REAL, nor are they a reference or analogy to anything that is real/concrete (such as the number "i").

If one were to abandon this notional principle "i", myriad problems would have no solutions.

Therefore, we may forgive the limits of reasons and the limitations of assumption when utilizing concept and analogy if only that, out of the infinite array of problems we face, we may find the solution for one.

There is no harm in conceptualizing.

Voniggir, your ability to make quick use of self-defeating propositions is no license to be rude. It would probably be best to treat yourself to some icecream, seeing that you are probably your only friend in life.

--------------------

Vonnigir, cheers to you mate; infinite regress is all yours :)

-------------------

If only that assumption provides the abnegation of its own subject; peut-être.

xyd