question about type 1 concepts

[Seraphor12]

Are type 1 concepts considered to be the intension of that concept which they're representing? Or does it need to be shown that they're the intension of the concept itself.

 

[Shar122]

Intension? Do you mean that they are the internal content of a concept?
Well if that's what you are referring to.. Then no, it is not the internal content BUT the concept itself which encompasses some aspect or things it inherently govern (a.i.e the existence of a specific content is tied to that concept)

 

[Seraphor12]

Intension? Do you mean that they are the internal content of a concept?
Well if that's what you are referring to.. Then no, it is not the internal content BUT the concept itself which encompasses some aspect or things it inherently govern (a.i.e the existence of a specific content is tied to that concept)

yes i meant internal content of a concept. And can you tell that simply?

 

[Shar122]

yes i meant internal content of a concept. And can you tell that simply?

Well, concept is not the internal content, but simply the blueprint or concept itself In which, all things of an aspect of reality (ex. The concept of Trait etc.) Is derived from it, giving it meaning, etc. And essentially all the existence of that "content" is tied/connected to the concept type 1 which is independent from physical reality

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

It needs to be shown that they're the intension of the concept itself if you are going for low 1A and above concepts. Other than that, you don’t need to, since the CM is very loose. If it weren’t, everyone would have needed to prove that type 1, 2, and 3 concepts are the whatness itself of a thing in order to qualify for CM.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

It needs to be shown that they're the intension of the concept itself if you are going for low 1A and above concepts. Other than that, you don’t need to, since the CM is very loose. If it weren’t, everyone would have needed to prove that type 1, 2, and 3 concepts are the whatness itself of a thing in order to qualify for CM.

statements like this are probably explicit when it comes to intension

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

statements like this are probably explicit when it comes to intension

and something like this: manipulation of concepts being not the manipulation of a vague abstract force, but rather the manipulation of the fundamental whatness/attributes of things themselves, which affects their characteristics since you are influencing the very source of their properties.