PDA

View Full Version : Is dinosaur a bird?



coberst
02-06-2009, 07:01 AM
Is dinosaur a bird?

“Fossil evidence and intensive biological analyses have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that birds are theropod dinosaurs.”—Wiki

When is a politician lying? Is the Pope a bachelor? It all depends upon what is is!

Category is the staff of knowledge. What are categories and who gives a #@*&?

The word “bachelor” is a noun for those individuals defined as being an unmarried adult male. Most people would not say that the Pope is a bachelor even though he is an unmarried adult male.

Let us examine the process that is called “framing the issue”. We see an example of this when one side calls it self ‘pro-life’ and the other side calls it self ‘pro-choice’. The pro-choice individual is framing the issue about that beautiful concept ‘freedom’. The pro-life individual is framing the issue about that beautiful concept ‘life’.

Framing the issue is about choosing categories based upon often ideological and self-serving purposes. However, we do also frame the issue by categorization with or without ideological or self-serving motivations. Frames are one type, among many, of cognitive models.

What day is this, it’s Monday, the worst day of the week! Monday can only be defined in reference to what might be called an ICM (Idealized Cognitive Model). The concept ‘week’ is an ICM. The week is a whole that has seven parts. The model of the week is idealized, meaning that the seven-day week has no concrete existence, it is an abstract idea that we humans have created. It belongs to our culture; other cultures may have all kinds of different ICM for dividing up their cycles of the sun.

Back to the category of “bachelor” and the question ‘is the Pope a bachelor?’ There is generally a social context when using this word. We do not consider a gay male couple to be a set of bachelors. Catholic priests are not generally considered to be bachelors. I suspect that we do not think of Tarzan as being a bachelor.

Bachelor is an ICM like ‘week’ and in this case it does not fit even our culture in a complete and exact manner. “An idealized cognitive model may fit one’s understanding of the world either perfectly, very well, pretty well, somewhat well, badly, or not at all. If the ICM in which bachelor is defined fits a situation perfectly and the person referred to by the term is unrequitedly an unmarried adult, then he qualifies as a member of the category bachelor.”

When is a politician lying?

The category ‘lie’ can be a very important category especially when perjury is a question; perhaps it is even more important when citizen confidence is at stake. When is a lie, a lie, and when is it something more innocuous and can we know the difference?

There are a number of conditions that classical categorization of ‘necessary and sufficient’ place upon a statement before we catalogue it as being a lie: falsity of belief, intended deception, and factual falsity. A good example of a lie wherein there is little or nothing in which we might quibble is ‘when I steal something and then deny doing it’.

Empirical research has turned up a surprising conclusion about this matter of lies and liars. Most people consider that Fred is lying when Fred says something that Fred considers to be false, regardless of its factual falsity.

Bachelor, bird, and lie are example of prototypes. While some cognitive models are classical; that is to say, that they share rigid boundaries and are characterized by necessary and sufficient conditions, many are not.

Often there are is a prototype of the category by which we judge whether something belongs to a category. In the case of the three categories mentioned we use prototypical characteristics to judge whether a man is ‘really’ a bachelor or a liar. In the case of dinosaur I suspect most of us recognize that for zoological science the dinosaur is a bird but we would ordinarily not consider that a dinosaur is much like a sparrow or robin, which for many of us is a prototypical bird.

This business of categorization is what President Clinton was talking about when he replied “It all depends on what is is!”

Quotes from A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind by Steven L. Winter professor of Law.

Eugenie
02-22-2009, 05:03 PM
Well, if it is a bird, I am rather glad there are none in my city. I have had enough problems with pigeons overhead.

billyjack
02-23-2009, 07:50 PM
ah, there's the prototype theory i've been bugging you about. seems like its basically saying that words and the categories we place things in are more ambiguous than we are willing to let on... and since we think in words (or at least the portion of brain/body activity that we conventionally call thinking uses words as a median) that would make thought rather ambiguous as well, which it is. so we really dont know nothing about anything, except that we know nothing...which is a good starting point for philosophy and living

Eugenie
02-23-2009, 11:36 PM
wow, all that from really big birds! You are wonderful. Seriously, what on earth is your I.Q., and would Einstein devotees suddenly ditch him for you? Are you a teacher or something.
Personally I am not certain of my I.Q , it was ten once but that was because the teacher gave me the benefit of the doubt on my paper. :)

coberst
02-24-2009, 09:49 AM
ah, there's the prototype theory i've been bugging you about. seems like its basically saying that words and the categories we place things in are more ambiguous than we are willing to let on... and since we think in words (or at least the portion of brain/body activity that we conventionally call thinking uses words as a median) that would make thought rather ambiguous as well, which it is. so we really dont know nothing about anything, except that we know nothing...which is a good starting point for philosophy and living

Here is some more thoughts about this business of protypes as a means for categorization


Various scholars have played a significant role in the evolution of the new paradigm for cognitive science, which I call ‘embodied realism’.

These roles, and much more, are organized to facilitate comprehension by the interested lay person in the book Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by George Lakoff. This new paradigm is created by an operating group that I call SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) to distinguish it from the first paradigm for cognitive science which is commonly known as AI (Artificial Intelligence).

The first crack in the classical theory of categorization was initiated by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Classically defined categories have clear cut boundaries, and these boundaries are defined by common properties. Wittgenstein noted that a category like game cannot fit such clear cut boundaries because all games do not share common properties.

Wittgenstein noted that games do not share common properties but do share family resemblances. Chess and poker both involve one-on-one competition, skill, and knowledge; poker and old maid are card games, etc. He further noted that in mathematics, number must be precise but different mathematicians give differing precise definitions that are dependent upon their particular goals. They can define numbers which may or may not include or exclude transfinite and complex numbers. This applies also to such things as the concept of polyhedron.

Philosopher J. L. Austin extended this sort of analysis when he asked “Why do we call different [kinds of] things by the same name?” The answer to this question depends upon classical categorization theory, which Austin argues to be inaccurate.

As example Austin uses the word “healthy”: “when I talk of a healthy body, and again of a healthy complexion, of healthy exercise: the word is not just being used equivocally…there is what we may call a primary nuclear sense of ‘healthy’

Austin furthermore speaks of a holistic structure, a gestalt, governing such activities as cricket. A modifier such as cricket, when speaking of a cricket bat, a cricket ball, does not pick out any common property or similarity but refers to a structured activity.

“Wittgenstein assumed that there is a single category named by the word game, and he proposed that that category and other categories are structured by family resemblances and good and bad examples.”

“Like Wittgenstein, Austin was dedicated to showing the inadequacies of traditional philosophical views of language and mind—views that are still held today.”

The classical theory of categories is still held today by most people. New theories in the human sciences move into main stream culture very slowly. Unlike new theories in the natural sciences there is generally “no-money-in-it” for the new theories of the human sciences assimilation into the general culture. Thus the culture lags generations behind the sophisticated technology that our society generates.

Psychologists, linguists, and anthropologists, i.e. those sciences at the forefront in the human sciences have discovered that categories cannot be defined by a list of features. Instead a confused Tom and Jane tend to define categories (e.g. bird) by identifying prototypical members of the category (e.g. sparrow or robin) and then comparing others to these prototypical examples. Our ordinary concepts are thus seldom uniformly or homogeneously structured.

Our moral concepts are also not what we ordinarily think them to be. Such concepts as person, duty, right, and law will have prototype structure also. Because the general sense regarding categories is not consistent with our “real” way of categorization we find our self constantly trying to stuff square pegs into round holes and fighting over the failure of others to comprehend our comprehension of reality.

Quotes from Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by George Lakoff

billyjack
02-24-2009, 10:13 AM
what do ya know eh...money (and the backwards morality that tends to go with it) is getting in the way of human progress

getting our general sense of categorization in line with our real way of categorizing might be showing itself as financially beneficial in the form of the green movement. it would make sense if this was so, since impending climate disaster (whether or not its true) puts people into a "shock" of sorts that makes the masses susceptible to radical changes in their ways of thinking, ie...symbiotically rather than dualistically

Eugenie
02-24-2009, 03:03 PM
When I was a child and would worry constantly about things, not what to wear or eat or who I was hanging out with or not, no , the state of the world and hungry children and abuse and all that-I had an auntie that would shake her head at me and say "that is why you get sick so much child, you think too much. Just relax and live."

That used to frustrate me and annoy me, for I could no more do that then fly , and yet I saw the merit in it when I looked at her calm and happy face.

there is a seen in the Rugrats movie where the two adult Pickle brothers are fighting and bikkering. Their elderly father says ' when I was a kid we used to throw dirt clogs at one another. A bag of dirt is what the kids want these days."
So simple.
And now back to the family association of games. That is truly interesting

mangueken
02-24-2009, 09:47 PM
The classical theory of categories is still held today by most people. New theories in the human sciences move into main stream culture very slowly. Unlike new theories in the natural sciences there is generally “no-money-in-it” for the new theories of the human sciences assimilation into the general culture. Thus the culture lags generations behind the sophisticated technology that our society generates.

Psychologists, linguists, and anthropologists, i.e. those sciences at the forefront in the human sciences have discovered that categories cannot be defined by a list of features. Instead a confused Tom and Jane tend to define categories (e.g. bird) by identifying prototypical members of the category (e.g. sparrow or robin) and then comparing others to these prototypical examples. Our ordinary concepts are thus seldom uniformly or homogeneously structured.

Our moral concepts are also not what we ordinarily think them to be. Such concepts as person, duty, right, and law will have prototype structure also. Because the general sense regarding categories is not consistent with our “real” way of categorization we find our self constantly trying to stuff square pegs into round holes and fighting over the failure of others to comprehend our comprehension of reality.

Quotes from Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by George Lakoff

Thoughtful thread coberst. I recognize and get the general idea of ICMs and framing, if people ever venture out to another planet our concepts of days and years will be different from the "colonizers'".
What fascinates me about framing, especially, is why we choose one way over another. What are the processes in individuals that are involved? I'm quite sure that the human sciences have a lot to say about this but I also think that neuroscience will have a lot to say as time goes on.
My last point is about the idea of that theories in the natural sciences are better off than those from the human sciences. While people do like the techno things and space flight etc., but I hardly think that the general population spends any more time reading about the theories in physics from Maxwell that make watching TV and listening to the radio possible than they do reading about the new theories in any of the human sciences. And if biology gets more of a hearing than any other science that's only because of the religious opposition to evolution.
By the way, what would be a good book to start with by JL Austin?

coberst
02-25-2009, 09:39 AM
Mangueken
I have not read this book by Austin but I have been informed that it is good.

"How to do things with words"

Niamh
02-25-2009, 09:48 AM
Shouldnt your thread title be are birds Dinosaurs? Or Did birds evolve from Dinosaurs? (which some more than likely did. But then again the only real life Dino is the Croc...)
Just thought i'd share that...

blp
02-25-2009, 12:43 PM
Who is dinosaur? Is she related to Dinah Shore? Dinah was Jimmy Stuart's bird before she was Frank Sinatra's chick.

'But I've gotta use words when I talk to you.' - TS Eliot, Sweeney Agonistes

coberst
02-25-2009, 04:48 PM
Shouldnt your thread title be are birds Dinosaurs? Or Did birds evolve from Dinosaurs? (which some more than likely did. But then again the only real life Dino is the Croc...)
Just thought i'd share that...

Good point, I agree.

jekan blazer
02-25-2009, 04:54 PM
yes and no...in my opinion, the pterodactyl is a bird... thats the yes...
no because dinosaurs are reptiles, and were cold blooded, whereas birds are avian and are warm blooded... thats just what i think...

Niamh
02-25-2009, 05:55 PM
Reptiles were dinosaurs. some Dinosaurs were avian. :)

jekan blazer
02-26-2009, 01:17 PM
Reptiles were dinosaurs. some Dinosaurs were avian. :)

i concour

bazarov
02-27-2009, 12:54 PM
Birds evolute from dinosaurs; from pterosaurus actually - flying reptiles.