1.0   A concept is a relation between TWO objects

    As with the word object, our philosophers have also had little luck telling us unambiguously what a concept is. Specifically,
    they still have trouble clarifying unambiguously how a concept differs from an object.

    “ A concept is an abstract idea or a mental symbol, typically associated with a corres-
      ponding representation in language or symbology, that denotes all of the objects in
      a given category or class of entities, interactions, phenomena, or relationships
      between them. Concepts are abstract in that they omit the differences of the things
      in their extension, treating them as if they were identical. They are universal in that
      they apply equally to every thing in their extension.” [1]

    “ Frege rigidly distinguished objects from functions…Frege took functional application
      ‘ƒ(x)’ as the principal operation for forming complex names of objects in his language.
      The expression ‘ƒ(x)’ denotes the object to which the function ƒ maps the object x.
      Frege called the object x the ‘argument’ of the function ƒ and called ƒ(x) the ‘value’ of
      the function. Since Frege also recognized two special objects he called truth-values
      (The True and The False), he defined a concept to be any function that always maps
      its arguments to truth-values. For example, whereas ‘x2 +3’ and ‘father-of(x)’ denote
      ordinary functions, the expressions ‘Happy(x)’ and ‘x > 5’ denote concepts. The
      former denotes a concept which maps any object that is happy to The True and all
      other objects to The False; the latter denotes a concept that maps any object that is
      greater than 5 to The True and all other objects to The False.” [2]

    “ ‘Socrates is a philosopher’ consists of ‘Socrates’, which signifies the Object Socrates,
      and ‘is a philosopher’, which signifies the Concept of being a philosopher.” [2]

    [Socrates is an object? Perhaps Man is an object or a human is an object, but 'Socrates'
    is a concept. We named this man Socrates to distinguish him from Plato and Euclid. The
    word 'Socrates' embodies a relation. When you point and say 'Socrates', the ET just sees

    In other words, the experts are saying that a concept is a concept! Great! What have we learned?
    If, as the philosophers argue, a concept is an abstract idea that I have in my mind, is the leprechaun I am thinking about at
    this moment an object or a concept? Isn’t a leprechaun ultimately just a little man? Doesn’t this little man have shape? Isn’t a
    centaur just a strange kind of horse? Isn’t a tribar just a weird geometric figure (Fig. 1)? Does the fact that I visualize them in
    my mind rather than have them in front of me change their status as objects? The definition the philosophers propose does
    not clarify how to distinguish an abstract object from an abstract concept. The listener can visualize the abstract object
    because it has shape. We cannot visualize that which doesn’t. There is no excuse for confusing objects with concepts in

    What distinguishes a concept from an object is that a concept is artificial (man-made) and invokes a minimum of two
    objects (Fig. 2). All concepts, without exceptions, were invented by Man. In other words, the definition of the word
    concept is predicated on the definition of the word object. If you are marooned on an island in the middle of nowhere
    with an ET, before you can communicate concepts to him, you must teach him the name of the objects. You point and
    say 'rock,' 'tree,' 'coconut.' Before he understands verbs such as climb, knock, break, eat, and survive you must
    absolutely have a physical intermediary. Only then can you communicate to him sophisticated dynamic concepts, for
    example, that he should climb the tree and knock the coconut to the ground where you will break it with a rock so that
    you can both eat and thus survive.

    concept: A word that embodies or invokes more than one object or location.
                    (Syn.: notion, idea, mathematical object, particulars, member of a set, relation, to relate).

    The philosophers were always hovering around the correct definitions of the words object and concept. They eventually
    came to realize somewhat vaguely that object has to do with the number 1.

    “ Natural objects are, philosophically speaking, individuals; they are involved as
      units in dynamic, causal processes.” [4]

    What they failed to realize is that a concept has to do with the number 2. So no cigar!

    A concept is a relation between two or more things or locations, and this guarantees that we can find its antonym or
    something with which it contrasts. Hot is the opposite of cold, on is the opposite of not on, and mass is the opposite
    of mass-less. Run is a comparison between two locations of one object which effectively amounts to a comparison
    between two objects: one real and one imaginary. We are considering a minimum of two frames, each of which contains
    the same object at different locations. We can just as well assume that we are staring at two different objects. We are also
    implicitly contrasting run against walk, jump, and swim, and thus treating it as a category of motion. You point and say
    ‘run’, but the ET only sees boy. The prosecutor must necessarily explain to an ET what run alludes to. Even the
    ‘categories’ object and space are themselves concepts, the former meaning shape and the latter meaning no shape. On
    the other hand, not a single standalone shape has an opposite. Cat is not the opposite of dog and tree is not the opposite
    of rock or of tree-less. The word cat becomes a concept when you treat it as a category of animals: when you contrast it
    against a dog or a fish. When you point to a shape and say cat, you are identifying an object. The extraterrestrial identifies
    the word cat with the designated shape. A concept is something the prosecutor of a theory has to explain and the jury, in
    the best of cases, understands. An object is a shape the prosecutor points to and names. The juror visualizes (i.e., sees)
    the object and identifies it with the sound you just vocalized.
QUICK! Get a bucket
of water, you
dummy! I'm just a

    2.0   Static versus dynamic concepts

    There are two general types of concepts, static and dynamic. For example, a ratio is a static concept. We can look at a circle
    with a line drawn down the center and conceptualize the concept π in a single image or frame. In order to conceptualize a
    dynamic concept such as a rate, we need to see the thing move for two or more frames. A concept such as large is also
    static. We don't need to see anything move to conceptualize large or largest. We just need to compare two or more objects
    within a single image. On the other hand, the concept inflation by its very nature invokes motion. True adjectives (flat,
    continuous, unbounded, straight) and prepositions of location (at, on, in, below/above, behind, among) are conceptually
    static. True adverbs (rectilinear, constant, perpetual, incessant) and prepositions such as  (to, under - over, forward,
    through, along, nearby) are inherently dynamic. Static concepts also include nouns of ordinary speech such as direction,
    dimension, length, and point particle. Dynamic concepts include almost all the 'mathematical objects' of Mathematical
    Physics: energy, mass, time, field, force, vector, number, volume, singularity, black hole, dark matter, wave, space-time.
    The idiots of Mathematics summarily convert these dynamic concepts into static objects when they inadvertently begin
    to move them around.

    The following words exemplify the manner in which some of these concepts embody two objects or locations:

    on (static concept): irremediably invokes two entities (e.g., a glass above and in contact with a table). You can’t use
    on unless you implicitly or explicitly allude to two objects.

    energy (dynamic concept): involves motion or a comparison (e.g., potential energy has velocity embedded in the

    volume (dynamic concept): the mathematicians routinely confuse this concept for an object. For example, a cube is
    an object and becomes a concept when used, compared, or defined in some way. A volume, on the other hand, will
    forever remain a concept. We use units such as ‘cubic meters’ (m ³) to identify a volume. Now try it with a cube. What
    meaning would it have to append units to a cube?
    If the prosecutors want the ET to know what a cube is, they cannot present an expression such as 3 m³ and hope that
    the alien ‘understands’ what they are talking about. The prosecutors have no choice but to point to a cube and say
    ‘cube.’ Only then can the ET visualize the object in question and identify it with the sound. If the prosecutors want the
    ET to understand the ‘concept’ cube, they have no choice but to introduce other objects such as a sphere, a square,
    or a chair. Conversely, a volume makes no provision for shape. As far as Mathematics is concerned, we can have
    distinct geometric figures – cubes, spheres and pyramids – with the same volume. A volume is all motion and no
    substance. The word volume represents a dynamic concept. A volume is ‘extension’ in space: the amount of water
    that the rubber ducky displaces inside the tub. From a conceptual point of view, the word volume means that the
    surface of a 3D object expanded to occupy a certain amount of space.

    To summarize, an object can only be illustrated and visualized. The only way to present an object is by pointing to Exhibit A
    and uttering a word. Until then, the prosecutor has done nothing with the word. He     hasn’t moved the object, used it in a
    sentence, or compared it against anything else. Only in this context are we dealing with objects. All the examples I gave
    earlier – leprechaun, centaur, tribar – are, first and foremost, objects. You point to a picture of a leprechaun, say
    “leprechaun,” and the ET just sees a man. You could have said “X” and it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference. It is when
    you categorize the green little elf and contrast him against other objects that the ET understands the meaning of the concept
    ‘leprechaun’. The concept 'leprechaun' condenses noun, adjectives, and adverbs in a single word.

    Objects belong exclusively to the hypothesis stage of the scientific method. They form a part of the initial scene of a scientific
    theory. The jury visualizes this scene in order to understand the explanation that follows. Any use beyond the hypothesis
    summarily converts an object into a concept.

    Of course, if you buy into my definition of the word object, the pertinent question is whether space-time qualifies as an object.
    The reason a wall can exist without white is that a wall has shape. White doesn’t. So the question is, ‘Is it possible to paint
    space-time white?’ Is it possible to visualize space-time from a bird’s-eye perspective?’

    So now that we have the definitions in place, perhaps we can finally resolve unambiguously whether some of the borderline
    words that the philosophers have been debating for hundreds of years are objects or concepts. Is a hole an object or a
    concept? Is a shadow an object or a concept? How about fire, gas, an ocean? We have no trouble deciding whether a
    chair or a rock is an object. It is the borderline cases we have problems with.

Fig. 2   Object versus Concept

(e.g., direction, on, that)
CONCEPT     (2 objects or locations)

Fig. 1   The object ‘tribar’

The object is what you see at face value
– the outline – and that you associate with
a word. An object only has an outer
perimeter or surface. It is when you try to
make sense of the figure (i.e., understand
it) that it becomes a concept. A concept
involves a relation.

(e.g., over, infinite, energy)
(shape + background)
An atom is an
You fool! Fire is
made of atoms and
is definitely a term!
The wind is just hot
air, like everythin
hat comes out of
your mouth!
You hard-headed
dummy! The wind
is a substance!
You can stop
fighting now!
Only a stone
such as this is
an object!
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
After 3000 years,
the morons of
Philosophy still
have no idea what
a concept is


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008