UNIT PERCEPTION
Contents:
Perception retains sensations in a context. Multiple perceptions can overlap, i.e. relate to each other because of similarities, i.e. overlapping elements, while the differences, i.e. non-overlapping elements distinguish the perceptions from each other. Hence, the essence of the relationships between perceptions is the identification of common and distinct elements, i.e. the identification of similarities and differences.
Through a volitional consciousness’ selective focus on the similarities between perceptions while omitting the differences, we can treat a concrete in the same way as other similar concretes, i.e. we can identify a concrete not as an isolated perception but as a member of a group of similar members, i.e. we can identify a concrete as a unit. The essence of unit-perception is the selective focus on similarities while omitting the differences between the similar things. Note that to omit something is not to deny its existence, but only to keep it out of conscious focus.
Note that we can process perceptions with unit-perception due to the fact that perceptions are retained in a particular order, and thus, can be brought to selective focus. But the same is true for any product of selective focus, such as units themselves and their attributes, which is why they themselves can also be subjected to unit-perception.
A unit is a member of a group of similar things.
It is the result of viewing something in relation to similar things, retaining the similarities and omitting the differences between them. Again, note that by omitting differences, we do not deny that they exist; rather, we are saying that differences exist but may exist in any quantity. To omit these differences is only to keep these particular differences out of consideration.
Units are things viewed by a consciousness in a certain existing relationship. Things exist, but units do not exist in reality (apart from consciousness) as units but as things. However, unit-perception is the result of an abstraction of attributes that actually exist. Hence, though units do not exist qua units in the reality outside our minds, they refer to reality and are objective not subjective.
1.
The number ‘1’ is a unit of pure quantity. It denotes the occurrence of a defined type of thing. Every occurrence of that type of thing is distinct in some way, but is denoted by 1. The number of 1s denotes the repeated occurrences of that type of thing.
2.
A person is a unit of the human population; the word by itself denotes any human being. Each human is individually unique, but due to the similarities that distinguish them from other living things and things in general, each human can be denoted by the term “person”, and is a unit of the human population.
3.
Metre is a unit of distance. It denotes a one-dimensional stretch of space that is physically specified and constant. A general stretch of one-dimensional space may contain many such one-dimensional stretches of space, each of which can be differentiated according to its position and direction. Yet each such stretch is a metre of distance and is thus a unit of distance.
NOTE: We have defined entities and actions in metaphysics and epistemology.
The perception of an entity can be reduced into its components; perception is the integration of sensations in a particular order, and a selective focus can isolate parts of a perception from the whole. A component is nothing but a perceivable, i.e. concrete part of the entity.
However, with unit-perception, we can identify not just perceptions but units as parts of a whole entity. By doing so, i.e. by relating a unit to a concrete, we are identifying more than what we perceive in one instance (since a unit is the product of the identification of relationships between two or more things). In this way, we are relating previous knowledge to a given concrete, and thus, expanding our knowledge of the given concrete more than we would just by perceiving it. In short:
A component is an entity that is a part of an entity, while an attribute is a unit that is a part of an entity. Components can be identified by perception, but attributes can only be identified through unit-perception. Like with unit-perception in general, identifying attributes enables one to expand one’s knowledge of a concrete by relating it to a wider context of knowledge.
Note that such a unit can be a unit of units, a comparison using units (a measurement, which is retained in terms of units), or an integration of units (a concept, which is retained as a conscious unit). Note also that just as a unit cannot exist as a concrete qua unit, an attribute cannot exist as a concrete qua attribute; an attribute is derived as a relationship between entities (since a unit itself is a product of a relationship between things), and thus, attributes have no existence apart from the entities possessing said attributes.
Necessity:
If X is necessary, it means not-X contradicts reality. If X is necessary for Y, it means not-X contradicts Y.
Essential:
That which is necessary for a thing to be what it is, i.e. necessary for its identity, and thus, its existence. In other terms, if a feature P is essential to a thing S, then the existence of S presupposes P.
Fundamental:
That which is necessary and sufficient for a thing to be what it is for a thing to be what it is, i.e. necessary and sufficient for its identity, and thus, its existence. In other terms, if a feature P is fundamental to a thing S in a given context, then (in the given context) P leads to S, and the existence of S presupposes P.
The difference between an essential and a fundamental can be summarised as a difference between a necessary condition and a necessary cause. Hence, all fundamentals are essentials but not all essentials are fundamental.
With respect to characteristics…
Essential characteristic:
The characteristic that makes a class of units the kind of things they are, and differentiates them from other kinds of things. Note that based on the definition of a unit, i.e. a member of a group of similar things, what makes a unit distinctive, i.e. what makes it similar to each member of its group and also different from each member of other groups. Hence, an essential characteristic is a distinctive characteristic that is necessary to unite the members of a group of similar things.
Fundamental characteristic:
The characteristic which is responsible for all of an object’s distinctive characteristics in a given context. By its nature, it is a set of one or more essential characteristics.
TECHNICAL NOTE: A set of characteristics can also be considered together as a single, composite characteristic.
Essentials and fundamentals can only be identified in a certain cognitive context; we cannot identify more than we know. Furthermore, the required context in which we need to retain the nature of the units subsumed by a concept may necessitate a more limited cognitive context, thereby limiting what we may identify as essentials or fundamentals. In either case, we see that essentials and fundamentals are defined with respect to a certain context.
Metaphysically, things have no essentials and fundamentals as such; essentials and fundamentals exist only in the context of particulars. Metaphysically — i.e. independent of consciousness — only concretes exist as such, and the identity of a concrete consists of everything that it is and not just some set of basic features. Essentials and fundamentals are identified based on our conscious purpose and knowledge — they are relevant to unit-perception, not to perception as such. They do refer to reality and are objective, but they are not independent of consciousness as they are the products of a conscious, selective focus on reality.
Illustrative analogy:
A digital image would not exist without a digital camera, but the object captured by the camera would exist independent of the camera. At the same time, the image is objective, i.e. it captures some part of reality; yet, it would not exist without the camera. Such is the objectivity of percepts, essentials, fundamentals and units.
Measurement is comparison between instances of the same attribute, done using units instead of perceptions. The essence of comparison is identifying similarities and differences, and the basis of identifying similarities and differences is the recognition of a previously retained conscious unit in a different context (i.e. in relation to different facts). As comparison is based on the recognition of a previously retained conscious unit, the same holds for measurement. In the case of measurement, i.e. comparison using units, comparison is the recognition of a previously retained unit. In other words, measurement is the identification of a relationship between two instances of an attribute expressed in terms of a common unit. Notice that units are reducible to perceptions, hence measurement is reducible to perceptual comparison. But since units can subsume an unlimited range of perceptions, reducing measurement to perceptual comparison requires a wide enough perceptual focus — so wide in some cases as to not be humanly possible. This points to the purpose of measurement: measurement extends the range of our cognition beyond the range of direct perception.
Note that measurement of an observed attribute of a thing involves comparison with a known unit, i.e. the unit of measurement. Also note that the absence of an attribute is also a measure of that attribute, because the absence of an attribute in one instance can be easily perceived in relation to the presence of the same attribute in some other instance, whatever the unit of measurement is. Finally, note that particular measurements or particular ranges of measurements of an attribute are themselves attributes by definition. In other words, an attribute may be divided into multiple specific attributes based on its specific measurements, and multiple specific attributes may be united as measurements of a single, broader attribute.
Example:
To measure the length of a stretch of road — length being the occupied one-dimensional space observed — you take a perceivable and constant stretch of one-dimensional space as the unit, such as a metre, or group a thousand metres as a new unit, such as a kilometre — which is reducible to perceivable metres. The relationship between the unit and the observed attribute here is the number of such metres or kilometres to be combined in order to reach the observed length of the road.
Since measurement consists of relating easily perceivable or conceivable units to the attributes observed in things, through measurement, we can potentially identify quantities that are not directly perceivable by a human — or even by any conscious being. For example, we may not be able to directly perceive a distance of 1000 kilometres, but we can define it using kilometres, which can be reduced to metres, which are directly perceivable by a human. Thus, we see that the primary purpose of measurement is to expand the range of a human’s consciousness beyond the perceptual level.
Note that, by the definition of measurement, it is not necessary either to define the unit of measurement or to know the exact numerical relationship between two instances of the same attribute in order to identify differences in measurement. This is because a quantitative relationship is essentially the identification of the perceptual comparison between two instances of the same attribute, which can be achieved through non-numerical unit-perception as well (although through numbers, this perceptual difference can be abstracted and thus extended beyond our usual range of perception and conception; but even so, a quantitative relationship is always reducible to a perceptual comparison). Hence, we can identify different measures of the same attribute, such as different colours, without needing to grasp either the unit of measurement — the wavelength of light, in this case — or the exact numerical relationship between two different colours. In general, if we can identify a set of attributes as instances of a broader attribute, we can identify them as measurements of the same attribute.
As mentioned earlier, each measurement of an attribute is, by definition, also an attribute, thus being a unit that is a part of some entity. On the other hand, each attribute can be some measurement of a broader attribute.
Commensurable attributes are those that can be reduced to the same unit or units of measurement. Hence, incommensurable attributes are those that cannot be reduced to any common units or common sub-attributes, and hence exist independently of one another, i.e. they are not mutually exclusive and may exist at once for the same entity.
Examples of commensurable units:
1.
Circles, squares, ovals, etc. can be reduced to the same units of measurements required to describe all 2D shapes, because they all share the same sub-attributes, as they all occupy 2D space enclosed by 1D lines.
2.
Red, yellow, green, etc. can be reduced to particular wavelengths of light, which in turn can be described by the same units (length, frequency, period, etc.); if the unit(s) of measurement is not known, different colours can still be identified as different instances (or measurements) of the broader attribute “colour”.
Now, to compare two things, you must compare their attributes. But if we compare two incommensurable attributes, then we are not actually differentiating the two entities being compared because the two entities can in fact share these attributes. Even to say that they do not share these attributes requires comparing commensurable attributes, wherein the presence of the attribute in one instance is compared to its absence in the other instance. Hence, to compare, i.e. to find differences and similarities, i.e. to differentiate and integrate, we can use only commensurable attributes. Note that by “things”, I mean not just physical entities but also conscious units, such as concepts.