Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3192 talk.philosophy.misc:1887 sci.lang:4019 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ucsd!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!harnad From: harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang Subject: Re: Categorization Summary: Motives vs Features in Categorization Message-ID: Date: 24 Jan 89 21:24:25 GMT References: <681@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> <2959@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <2899@xyzzy.UUCP> <3028@xyzzy.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 49 throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) of Data General, RTP NC wrote: " [T]here are no non-arbitrary categorizations... By "categorization", I " meant the features that pick out a category. By "arbitrary " categorization" I meant that the features chosen from some set of " possibilities might seem, to some observers at least, to be chosen " without motive or "at random"... " [T]there are no arbitrary categories... By "arbitrary category" I " meant that the basis for inclusion could not be objectively determined, " and thus seemed "random". " [I]t is always possible to "objectify" a category based on subjective " grounds, by the "inspector 12" method: "It don't say (it's in category " X) until *I* say it says (it's in category X)." " I don't see that it makes a fundamental difference whether a particular " "category detector" such as "this scene is good/bad looking", or this " "flower smells good/bad" needs a particular person or instrument to act " as oracle... the person involved may very well be making the judgement " objectively by criteria that other observers cannot perceive The first passage is getting too complicated for me. Sounds like it's saying no category is arbitrary but all features on the basis of which you pick them out are arbitrary. Seems like a strained form of realism. Fine. But the trouble is that features are categories too, which makes the whole thing sound like it's either incoherent or an arbitrary semantic quibble. Yes, things are what they are irrespective of my 'druthers, but my sorting still either does or does not depend on something objective and invariant "out there." My *motives* for picking features are not what's at issue in the debate about whether or not the "classical" view is correct, but the objective *existence* and *use* of those (classical) features. The second point has to do with using another person as your feature-detecting instrument. Fine. But there's still the question of whether HIS sorting is based on features he's detecting "out there" or he's merely listening to some inner voice, which in turn has no objective external basis. If the latter, then for HIM no objective miscategorization is possible -- no OBJECTIVE consequences follow from sorting "incorrectly." Hence the category he is picking out is purely subjective, and hence arbitrary in the second sense we were discussing. (This would NOT be like, say, ultraviolet light detection, where your human oracle/instrument would indeed be using classical features.) -- Stevan Harnad INTERNET: harnad@confidence.princeton.edu harnad@princeton.edu srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu harnad@princeton.uucp BITNET: harnad@pucc.bitnet CSNET: harnad%princeton.edu@relay.cs.net (609)-921-7771