Talk:Q151885

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Autodescription — concept (Q151885)

description: semantic unit understood in different ways, e.g. as mental representation, ability or abstract object (philosophy)
Useful links:
Classification of the class concept (Q151885)  View with Reasonator View with SQID
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
⟨concept⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1)
Generic queries for classes
See also


Concept is fundamental; has no subclass[edit]

A concept has no subclass and should be a root class. You cannot have something more abstract than a concept nor more fundamental. Currently, everything listed as "subclasses" for this entry are all concepts themselves. Slight0 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not the most general class. E.g. any physical object is not a concept itself (me not), so they are not in the subtree of "concept" and thus in some other subtree. --Infovarius (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

location of final assembly[edit]

human brain (Q492038) --Fractaler (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This property is about the assembly of real world products, not ideas, thoughts or abstract models. Sänger (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
location of final assembly, Description: "place where the item was made; location of final assembly". No real world products --Fractaler (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts are not made in the meaning of making, that this property means. It's clear by the second half-sentence, the one with assembly in it, that it's something about manufactured goods and such, not philosophical subjects. Sänger (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, concept (Q151885), "location of final assembly YourVersion" "place where the item was made"? --Fractaler (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
??? What do you want to say with this strangely ordered words? This here is an abstract object, not a thing. The property P1071 is about things. Do you understand the difference? Sänger (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) location of a concept - human brain (Q492038). Right? --Fractaler (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sänger (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No? Where by your version? --Fractaler (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere, it's just a concept, it has no location. Sänger (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: What's the colour of Red?
A concept - object. Each object has its own (location) space: physical object (Q223557) - Universe (Q1), virtual object - virtual reality (Q170519), term (Q1969448) - dictionary (Q23622), concept (Q151885) - human brain (Q492038). This can be verified experimentally: the destruction of the object space → the disappearance of the object. --Fractaler (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"What's the colour of Red?" - Red (Q16280852) - name, does not emit/reflect color (Q1075) --Fractaler (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A) The color of the three letters I wrote was and is green (Q3133), and B) a concept is not a case (Q16513232), thus has no physical location (Q17334923).
A) "The color of the three letters I wrote was and is green (Q3133)" - confirm. And what is the question? B) Then a concept = god (is not a case (Q16513232), thus has no physical location (Q17334923) and so on), =religion (Q9174). science (Q336) said: a concept is a object; each object has its own space. --Fractaler (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think your kind of mixing en:Heaven, or [[:ru:Небеса], and en:Sky or ru:Небо, in German both is de:Himmel, one is de:Himmel (planetär), the other de:Himmel (Religion), so only one is a space, the other is just a concept, something imaginary, not real in an object kind of space. These two things must be kept distinct. Sänger (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
en:Heaven, sky (Q527), concept (Q151885), green (Q3133), Red (Q16280852), color (Q1075), human brain (Q492038) - term (Q1969448). Each term (Q1969448) has its own space=location=dictionary (Q23622) (dictionary of religious terms, dictionary of religious terms chemical Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie (Q1575325), AGS JH24 (Q292678), glossary of vexillology (Q952860), glossary of diabetes (Q4423793), Index of genetics articles (Q4432948), glossary of cue sports terms (Q764884), glossary of topology (Q2358888) and so on). Each term (Q1969448) appears in/to the human brain (Q492038) (neuro-mapping, neuro-association, neural connections). So real object (=signal (Q174984)) → sensor (Q167676)/sensory receptor (Q729463) → an image in the brain (=concept (Q151885)) → this image is assigned to the symbolic identifier, mark - term (Q1969448). And brain imaginary objects can be created in the (neuronet) brain space. This objects is assigned to the symbolic identifier also (→imaginary objects dictionary). No brain - no space/location for an image; no image - no concept (Q151885); no concept (Q151885) - no terms/dictionary (en:Heaven). Only real obects in Universe (Q1). You can check. --Fractaler (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make all this properties useless, by flooding them with everything, some very far-fetched thinking might connect somehow to the property, I think you should try to make an RfC. To put to every single word a property "is in a dictionary" ist plain senseless. Sänger (talk)
we are creating here (using Q, properties and so on) a model of the world. I like the order. Scientific order (scientific model of the world) said: 1) There are spaces/platform (real - universal, network of brain, network of URL, network of dictionaries; unreal - virtual, mathematical and so on) 2) Spaces/platform contain objects. Which model of the world you are creating? --Fractaler (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spaces contains objects, but ideas and thoughts are not objects. I'd like to have a clear, scientific distinction between properties of real world objects and imaginary objects. They don't live in the same space. Sänger (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" ideas and thoughts are not objects" - object (Q488383) is a technical term in modern philosophy often used in contrast to the term subject. A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. For modern philosophers like Descartes, consciousness is a state of cognition that includes the subject—which can never be doubted as only it can be the one who doubts–—and some object(s) that may be considered as not having real or full existence or value independent of the subject who observes it. "They don't live in the same space" - confirm, real world objects live in the real world (=real space), imaginary objects live in the imaginary world (=imaginary space). No imaginary space - no imaginary objects, no real space - no real world objects and no imaginary space --Fractaler (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this here, the location of final assembly, also known as workplace, factory or such, is smack in the middle of the real world, and has no connection to the imaginary world. Thus no imaginary objects (i.e. objects in a philosophical way of talking, not in the normal way) belong in here, and no living creatures, as they are not assembled, they just grow. Cars, clothes, dishes, machines are assembled, mice and thoughts not. Sänger (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

assembly - The act of putting together a set of pieces, fragments, or elements --Fractaler (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

In this page there is no consensus about Concept. Conception commonly refers to Concept, as it is written here. דגש wrote that he did not know well the term. Therefore he did not have to restore it. The Hebrew translation of "Conception" is: תְפִישָׂה ,מוּשָׂג ,הַשׁקָפָה ,הַשָׂגָה ,מַחֲשָׁבָה. There are similarities of areas, overlapping as we say in Architecture, and דגש definitely did not have to restore it. Tagging גארפילד as the Hebrew bureaucrat and יונה בנדלאק as the Wikidata admin. Dgw (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask דגש, why he revert it? - yona b (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
הייתה לי בעיה להגיע לוויקינתונים. user:יונה בנדלאק, הקישור לקונספציה לא נכון, ראה את הדיון בוויקיפדיה העברית ב"שיחת טיוטה:קונספציה". thanks, דגש חזק - Talk 01:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not tracking Wikidata entities as concepts[edit]

Arguably, many common-noun Wikidata entities are concepts. But it does not make sense to track them as "instance of" concept, IMHO. It would add no value, and would render "what links here" so much less useful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Wikidat entities were concepts, they would be concepts in the field of ontology, not of philosophy, this one. And to say that a concept belongs to a field, one says studied-by field. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put it in less ambiguous terms:

  • a Wikidata entity is hardly ever an instance of concept (philosophy)

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q151885&oldid=1795215635"