Towards an attempt to justify the title of this blog
Some thoughts on the philosophy of language.
This seems very plausible to me. My ideas of things are elastic, expanding and contracting, shifting into other categories through experience. It seems that the categories of intermediate breadth would be last to come. For example, the concept of mammal would require extensive experience and a certain degree of artificiality while the more specific category of bird would begin to take shape after seeing a handful of birds, as would the broader category of living things. Artificiality is the opposite of being self-evident in this usage. Perhaps the articiality is due to the number of essential characteristics in play for a classification. If something has a beak, it is very likely a bird. If something moves volitionally, it is very likely alive. The concept of mammal requires more, and less obvious, observations.
This also seems compatible with my inchoate ideas about the importance of probability in thinking and perception. Probability must be at the center of any attempt at adaptive learning and language. Probability allows for an infinity of expression within a finite vocabulary and for neologisms. If one isn’t committed to saying things like “Only moving things are alive.” are certainties, then one allows for the mutability of definitions where definitions is meant as membership of a class. Things can move in and out of classes as knowledge or observations accumulate and things acquire more specific and more subtle categorizations and cross-categorizations. An example of a cross-categorization would be mammal which categorizes across the more specific and more self-evident categories like dog, cat, etc.
P.S. Yes, it's the same George Lakoff who came up with the empty-shell ideas of Don't Think of An Elephant. As his serious work has apparently led to his very silly ideas outside academia, I will remain skeptical.
But the idea theory of meaning has lately been defended in new form. Called the theory of prototypes, it suggests that classes are formed on the basis of ideas of a particular, ideal token. For example, the category of "birds" may have the idea of a robin as a prototype, and then the limits of the meaning of bird (for example, a penguin) are sorted out through further experience and observation of like characteristics between robins and other similar animals. This theory has been defended by contemporary cognitive scientists Eleanor Rosch and George Lakoff.
This seems very plausible to me. My ideas of things are elastic, expanding and contracting, shifting into other categories through experience. It seems that the categories of intermediate breadth would be last to come. For example, the concept of mammal would require extensive experience and a certain degree of artificiality while the more specific category of bird would begin to take shape after seeing a handful of birds, as would the broader category of living things. Artificiality is the opposite of being self-evident in this usage. Perhaps the articiality is due to the number of essential characteristics in play for a classification. If something has a beak, it is very likely a bird. If something moves volitionally, it is very likely alive. The concept of mammal requires more, and less obvious, observations.
This also seems compatible with my inchoate ideas about the importance of probability in thinking and perception. Probability must be at the center of any attempt at adaptive learning and language. Probability allows for an infinity of expression within a finite vocabulary and for neologisms. If one isn’t committed to saying things like “Only moving things are alive.” are certainties, then one allows for the mutability of definitions where definitions is meant as membership of a class. Things can move in and out of classes as knowledge or observations accumulate and things acquire more specific and more subtle categorizations and cross-categorizations. An example of a cross-categorization would be mammal which categorizes across the more specific and more self-evident categories like dog, cat, etc.
P.S. Yes, it's the same George Lakoff who came up with the empty-shell ideas of Don't Think of An Elephant. As his serious work has apparently led to his very silly ideas outside academia, I will remain skeptical.
posted by joe at
8:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home