To categorize is to determine reality

[coberst]

To categorize is to determine reality

It is standard practice to categorize things in accordance to what they have in common. We normally think of a category as being a container in which things that are essentially the same are contained. This represents our common folk theory of category and it is also our principal technical theory of category.

These theories are not entirely incorrect but SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has shown this theory to be far too simple in its comprehension of this important aspect of human thought.

SGCS has introduced a new theory of categorization; it is called prototype theory.

There is perhaps no aspect of thought more important than that of how a creature categorizes kinds of things. The life of the tadpole and the banker is often at risk because the creature has failed to categorize properly. All creatures must at least distinguish eat from no eat and friend from enemy.

Categorization is primarily automatic and unconscious. Humans categorize all things both concrete and abstract. A traditionally Western philosophical view of categorization was a priori and given little thought. But now, since the empirical studies of Eleanor Rosch, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, specializing in cognitive psychology, all domains of knowledge have begun a more serious study of this matter.

Rosch argues that if all members of a category share the same common properties then none can be a better example of the category than any other. Secondly she argues that if categories are defined by the properties inherent in each member then categories must be independent of those who do the categorization.

Rosch and others observed that empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that categories have best examples, i.e. they have prototypes. Furthermore human capacities play a role in categorization.

“Prototype Theory, as it is evolving, is changing our idea of the most fundamental of human capacities—the capacity to categorize—and with it, our idea of what the human mind and human reason are like.”

In this century philosophy and others have viewed reason as a mechanical manipulation of abstract symbols which are meaningless in them self. This has led the first generation of cognitive science to adopt the Artificial Intelligence mode of thinking; thinking that the mind emulates in some fashion the computer.

Since we reason not only about individual things but also about generalizations and abstract ideas categorization is crucial to all aspects of reasoning. The accepted view of reason as being disembodied, i.e. not affected by bodies, comes with an implicit theory of categorization. “It is a version of the classical theory in which categories are represented by sets, which are in turn defined by the properties shared by their members.”

Contemporary prototype theory challenges this classical view. Prototype theory hypothesizes that “human categorization is essentially a matter of both human experience and imagination—of perception, motor activity, and culture on one hand , and of metaphor, metonym, and mental imagery on the other…To change the very concept of a category is to change not only our concept of the mind , but also our understanding of the world.”

Quotes from “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind” by George Lakoff

[Brutha]

It's a postmodern world, isn't it?

[Still Growing]

Do you notice that human have such a strong desire to categorize that they are willing to omit very strong data that doesn't fit that category?

In most posts I read going back and forth in these forums I see people disagree and then use your quote out of context or disagree just to be disagreeing. At the first sound of someone appearing to be in a different group of thought people immediately disagree. People also are quick to defend others who have common thought.

For example, I was arguing with someone over a point about how they thought all military people were murders and that they had no respect for military people. I posted back giving refuting arguments. I then get someone quoting me saying "I'm so tired of people like you saying that people who are against war don't respect soldiers...." I replied back, I too am against war. You are not reading properly. Please read more carefully as the other person clearly said they had no respect for military people. Then she replies "I don't think he meant that." Then the guy say. "No, I actually did mean that. I have no respect for soldiers they are all murders. "

The lesson learned is that people have a strong desire to identify with others. She saw that he was against war and immediately identified with him and did not listen carefully to his position. She heard me arguing with him and immediately jumped to his defense. This is not uncommon. Our desire to see what we want to see makes illusion possible. The desire to identify and categorize makes it possible for politicians to get elected.

We should all realize how we MISCATEGORIZE items daily.

[coberst]

Ontology is about determining what is real in the world. Epistemology is about how we can know what is real in the world. SGCS informs me that epistemology can and does create ontology.

Common sense intuition and objectivist philosophy says that everything is a kind of thing and that every thing has essential characteristics; we can categorize what is in the world by consciously determining the necessary and sufficient characteristics of all things and to place together those things that have the same essential characteristics.

SGCS informs us that the common sense and objectivist view of categorizing what is in the world is far too limiting; also this view is dependent upon a mind/body dichotomy.

SGCS informs us that they have discovered, through empirical means, that we know categories both consciously, as objectivism dictates, and unconsciously as objectivism denies. We know categories often unconsciously based upon how our body interacts with the world. We also form categories of abstract ideas and many of these display their presence through the words that we speak.

We almost always think and speak of abstract ideas via metaphor and it is by examining our standard metaphors that we can discover many categories that do not at all fit within the conscious categories of objectivism.

How categorizing creates reality: a good example is the metaphor WAR ON TERRIORISM, or the framing of abortion as either a woman’s choice or as killing a baby. Framing the response to the destruction of the towers as a war on terror and framing abortion as killing a baby has both lead to realties that include killing and destruction.

I quote from sections of Lakoff’s book:
“One of the major inadequacies of objectivist metaphysics is that it has no room for such humanly created realities as “wasted time”…If we live in a society that is constructed on the TIME IS A RESOURCE metaphor…then it can be true that someone wasted an hour of my time this morning…Many of our most important truths are not physical truths, but truths that come about as a result of human beings acting in accord with a conceptual system that cannot in any sense be said to fit a reality completely outside of human experience…Since we act in accord with our conceptual systems and since our actions are real, our conceptual systems have a major role in creating reality. Where human action is concerned, metaphysics, that is, our view of what exists and is real, is not independent of epistemology…”

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

We should all realize how we MISCATEGORIZE items daily.

I am inclined to say that we often categorize to fit our ideology.

[Brutha]

I read "The Black Swan" a few days ago. He makes the case that people who don't read newspapers are better informed about what goes on in the world than those who do, because they don't miscategorise as much on weak data.
It's a very interesting book if you don't want to lose yourself on the philosophical part of the debate but on the practical, on what matters in day to day life.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I read "The Black Swan" a few days ago. He makes the case that people who don't read newspapers are better informed about what goes on in the world than those who do, because they don't miscategorise as much on weak data.
It's a very interesting book if you don't want to lose yourself on the philosophical part of the debate but on the practical, on what matters in day to day life.

Great book !

I read the paper daily while watching news on the TV. It seems that the news is being spoon fed based upon some internal memo handed out among all the major stations. Even obsure news seems to show up in batches... Very odd.

Another book "4 hour work week" which is a candy read also suggest that reading the news is a waste of time. His point was that if its important enough it will trickle down to him. This leaves his mind open to digest things he chooses to put into his brain.

I'm addicted to reading and obtaining the news but I must admit that logically it holds some merit...

[Brutha]

It seems that the news is being spoon fed based upon some internal memo handed out among all the major stations.

More or less the Associated Press prints that memo. And journalists also read other papers.
Having real journalists who investigate stories is expensive.

Another book "4 hour work week" which is a candy read also suggest that reading the news is a waste of time.

Taleb who wrote the Black Swan not only suggests that it is a waste of time but also that you become less informed about what is going on in the world by reading newspapers and by catogerising in the process of reading it.
Someone who doesn't read the newspaper doesn't categorise and is therefore more open minded for seeing important things that don't fit into the categories.

And he claims that most important events don't fit into categories that existed beforehand.
People didn't predicted world war two for example. If people expect war certain companies and investment would increases in value on the stock market. But that didn't happen before the war.

If you read the news before WWII you wouldn't have had a clue about what is ahead.