PDA

View Full Version : To categorize is to determine reality


coberst
May 28, 2008, 03:36 PM
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

zavijava
May 28, 2008, 05:35 PM
Douglas Hofstaeder

TruthPrevails
May 28, 2008, 10:46 PM
To categorize is to determine reality
........
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 LakoffAgree. Categorization is embodied and necessary to facilitate survival.

zavijava
May 28, 2008, 11:13 PM
could you elaborate on your choice of verbs, 'is embodied'?

TruthPrevails
May 29, 2008, 01:18 AM
could you elaborate on your choice of verbs, 'is embodied'?Note this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_mind_thesis

nanaimo
May 29, 2008, 01:21 AM
Coberst, this is very interesting but not exactly new information.

coberst
May 29, 2008, 04:38 AM
Coberst, this is very interesting but not exactly new information.

This new insight by cognitive science began about three for four decades ago. That is pretty new in my book.

Togo
May 29, 2008, 08:47 AM
Coberst, this is very interesting but not exactly new information.

This new insight by cognitive science began about three for four decades ago. That is pretty new in my book.

It's ancient in terms of cognitive psychology though. When I did my degree I was told not to rely on anything taught in the first year as it might not be accurate by the final exam.

Does she have any connection to the Wright institute? Just down the road from the university, and fairly big on models of the mind.

A Stable Flux
May 29, 2008, 09:38 AM
It's not really old. I'm a psychology student in my second year and whenever we do cognitive psychology it's always just cognitive schemas, cognitive triad, Aaron Beck etc. with zero mention of embodied psychology or second generation cognitive scientists. It's going to be a while before it's commonplace at "the academy" and there are effects in clinical psychology.

Embodied psychology/mind/cognition (I'll just call it embodied psychology) is still far from being unified, but the use of a new term, "embodied", is grounded as all the contended theses are theoretically distinct from older cognitive psychology, which has only been around for 4 decades anyway.
The general idea or gist, as I think of it, is cognitions/thoughts/ideas are "interwoven" with emotions, perceptions and the body. Ideas are not simply abstract concepts.

Six points made about embodied psychology are

1. Cognition is situated
2. Cognition is time-pressured
3. We off-load cognitive work onto the environment
4. The environment is part of the cognitive system
5. Cognition is for action
6. Off-line cognition is body-based

(source (http://philosophy.wisc.edu/shapiro/PHIL951/951articles/wilson.htm))

This is an inadequate account, but the spirit is just that abstract (seemingly universal) cognitions are composed by particulars such as emotions and body.

coberst
May 29, 2008, 02:17 PM
New paradigms become quickly exploited or dumped in the natural sciences because there is often money-in-it. Alas such is not the case with the human sciences. New paradigms take generations to become carefully exploited or dumped because such actions generally must come from the academic community. Few professors want to dump their class notes that they have used for years and prepare new ones on matters that they must learn from the bottom up.

zavijava
May 29, 2008, 03:10 PM
could you elaborate on your choice of verbs, 'is embodied'?Note this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_mind_thesis


ok, I'll have to explore these guys a little further (Clark (1997) and Hendriks-Jansen (1996)).

But as I understand it, your statement, re: "Categorization is embodied and necessary to facilitate survival. "

...is true for all life?

with this I would agree.

Jo
May 29, 2008, 03:20 PM
Moved from P to S&S

Alcyonian

faithlessgod
May 31, 2008, 05:34 AM
To categorize is to determine reality
If you mean epistemically then I agree, if you mean ontologically then I disagree.

There is an external reality that exists regardless of how we categorize it. All Lakoff et al have shown is better epistemic objective means to create better categorizations to describe reality - including ourselves in the process of categorization itself.

nanaimo
May 31, 2008, 10:57 PM
From what I've learned in psychology and linguistics courses, the concept of schemata is far from new. The term schema was first used by Jean Piaget in 1926 and while it has changed and developed since then the idea that categorizations shape our reality has been around a long time.

coberst
June 1, 2008, 06:31 AM
To categorize is to determine reality
If you mean epistemically then I agree, if you mean ontologically then I disagree.

There is an external reality that exists regardless of how we categorize it. All Lakoff et al have shown is better epistemic objective means to create better categorizations to describe reality - including ourselves in the process of categorization itself.



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 would sum it all up by saying that 'objectivity is shared subjectivity' and that truth does not exist out there in the world but is something we create.

coberst
June 1, 2008, 06:36 AM
From what I've learned in psychology and linguistics courses, the concept of schemata is far from new. The term schema was first used by Jean Piaget in 1926 and while it has changed and developed since then the idea that categorizations shape our reality has been around a long time.

Most ideas about which philosophy deals have been around for a long time. Some have said that all philosophy are foot notes to Plato's thoughts.

faithlessgod
June 1, 2008, 07:35 AM
[QUOTE=faithlessgod;5366346]
If you mean epistemically then I agree, if you mean ontologically then I disagree.

There is an external reality that exists regardless of how we categorize it. All Lakoff et al have shown is better epistemic objective means to create better categorizations to describe reality - including ourselves in the process of categorization itself.



Ontology is about determining what is real in the world.
No you are confused, ontology is what is real in our world, the determination is epistemology.


Epistemology is about how we can know what is real in the world.
which is the determination of ontology


SGCS informs me that epistemology can and does create ontology.
Well it does not inform me so. Yours is just one take and I see no basis for such a subjectivist approach. SGCS relies on objective data to make its case and none of its products refute that this cannot be done. SGCS is not self-refuting but your take on it looks like it is.


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.
Yes well this is old hat. Knowing that our representations of ontology are inaccurate or mistaken does not alter ontology only our determination of it and this is what the SGCS is about.


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.
Correct and this is just epistemology. None of the following makes any difference to this key point.

SNIP


I would sum it all up by saying that 'objectivity is shared subjectivity' and that truth does not exist out there in the world but is something we create.
Nothing you said/quoted implies this. You cannot go from "epistemic objectivity is hard objectivity" - which is what the arguments above do make (note I have other issues with that) - to claims about ontologic objectivity.
Your conclusion relies on the fallacy of equivocation.