Theories of abstracts
 

How do we form abstracts? What I mean is how do we define the attributes of a group of objects in such a way that we can see one of them and say "This is an object of type X."

That's a damn good question.

I actually have an answer but am curious as to others

How does a cat do the same thing? Isn't it a function of the brain to differentiate between different objects in the environment? Whether it be at a basic level as has been show in some bacteria which will swim 'up' a chemical gradient in order to be nearer a digestable substance, or at a more sophisticated one like being able to tell the differences of form and association between the figures 1 and L - they must surely all be related to some task with evolutionary significance.

We do it by the process of generalization.
Since all we see and think are small parts of whole systems,
all we have to work with are generalizations.
Generalizations are and lead to more abstractions.
We live in a world of our own abstractions.
I'm sure of that.
What I'm not at all sure of is if that world of abstractions has anything significant to do with whatever may be actually out there.

language has allowed us to move from simple recognition to develop a system of signs which allow the grouping of object of x, y z and so on

right. in other words, it's a process of generalization.

well yeah, but without communication it wouldn't work

The problematic relationship between thinking and language has been discussed here in several threads. I'll see if I can dredge them up.

Edit: here's one thread that relates to this discussion:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...hlight=chomsky

Words are a pattern of air molecules pushed through the throats and mouths of people.

These sounds are formed by the output generated by the brain. So, to understand words (and hence the formation of concepts and all the rest) we need to understand the operation of the brain. This is to be done through neurology and cognitive science. The sucess of these ventures could be described as "limited" at best, and are no where near the position where they could shed any light on the question you asked, but the point remains: they are the only way.

Though it is a philosophical question, it will not be solved by philosphical debate. It could only be solved by science.

An analogous problem is "What is life?" Undeniably a philosophical question, but not one to be solved by philosophers.

On a more constructive note, may I recommend two essays by the inspired writer Douglas Hofstadter:
On the Seeming Paradox of Mechanizing Creativity and Analogies and Roles in Human and Machine Thinking. They are both collected in the sublime book Metamagical Themas. These two essays (and their vital post-scripts) alone are worth the price of the book and are among the most profound and insightful works I have ever read.

Also in that book on the same subject are
Variations on a Theme as the Crux of Creativity
and also the wonderful Metafont, Metamathematics and Metaphysics. The latter is an essay about typography of all things. But, reading between the lines you see that fonts are only being used as a simplified 'toy model' to investigate the profound questions, that are found in the real world, raised by concept forming, categorization and all the rest.

In a similar vein I also recommend Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies by Douglas Hofstadter and The Fluid Analogies Research Group.

-thinks back to uni philosophy-

Reminds me of Plato's? (might of been another greek dude) theory of forms.