Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3115 talk.philosophy.misc:1850 sci.lang:3959 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!indri!nic.MR.NET!xanth!ukma!gatech!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang Subject: Re: Categorization Message-ID: <2899@xyzzy.UUCP> Date: 17 Jan 89 21:26:07 GMT References: <681@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> <2959@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <976@husc6.harvard.edu> Organization: Data General, RTP NC. Lines: 56 > harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) > Two different senses of arbitrary seem to be at issue here, but only > one is relevant to the problem of the internal representation of > categories: The reason we single out a given feature and sort objects in > the world according to it may be arbitrary: No, it *must* be (not may be) arbitrary. The choice of categorization (as outlined in a previous posting) involves the motives and goals of the categorizer, and is thus subjective (and objectively arbitrary). > A dictator may have decreed > that we must worship all creatures that exceed his own weight; [...] > With nonarbitrary categories, nature is the dictator. I fail to see why nature is any less arbitrary than a human dictator. In each case, categorization happens relative to features "important" to some categorizer. Hence, in this sense, *all* categories are arbitrary. > The second sense of arbitrary would be one in which there really were > no objective features subserving an all-or-none distinction -- no > objective consequences whatsoever arising from miscategorization: Humpty > Dumpty's dictum that words mean what I want them to mean. Or an "X" is > whatever I say is an X. But even these categories have an objective feature which makes them what Steve has been calling "classical" categories. That is, one can use Humpty Dumpty's word as a category marker. "It doesn't say Haynes until *Dumpty* says it says Haynes." is just as objectively based a category as any other. So: the first sense of arbitrary is moot: all categorizations are arbitrary in this sense. The second sense of arbitrary is also moot: no categorizations are arbitrary in this sense. As somebody else already said (I think) all this is based on the notion that in/out distinctions are binary and certain. > I believe that the incoherent sort of category representation recommended > to us by those who think categories are represented nonclassically > would be arbitrary in this second sense. I think Steve is misinterpreting the position of the other posters here. I don't see them as saying that categories (as Steve defines categories) can be fuzzy. I see them as saying that it may well be that people in practice don't categorize in order to derive "X-is-like-Y" measures, but rather pseudocategorize according to these measures. (Note that I've put the mark on the non-Objectivist term here rather than placing a "$" mark on the Objectivist term. Uh... at least that's what I've done as near as I can tell.) -- "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." --- Lewis Carol -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw