What Categories Reveal About the Mind

What Categories Reveal About the Mind

I graduated from Oklahoma State University in January of 1959 with a BSEE (Bachelor of Science in Electronic Engineering) and went immediately to work for Hughes Aircraft Corporation in Southern California. In college I took an elective course in Symbolic Logic, this seminal decision was to determine the course of my engineering career and eventually my whole world view because symbolic logic is the heart of computer design.

In 1960 I attended my first computer conference in San Francisco wherein the great excitement was focused upon the idea of AI (Artificial Intelligence). That is to say, the excitement revolved around the idea that humans could design and build computers that might adequately emulate human intelligence.

Western society has long been under the assumption that human reason is disembodied and abstract. That is to say, that reasoning is distinct from perception and the body; furthermore reasoning is free from all the mechanisms of imagination, and is considered by many philosophers, psychologists, and others that reasoning fits the model of formal deductive logic:

“Reason is the mechanical manipulation of abstract symbols which are meaningless in themselves, but can be given meaning by virtue of their capacity to refer to things either in the actual world or in possible states of the world.”

Because the digital computer works through the process of symbol manipulation it can easily be understood as a partial model of reality. Many have taken to the understanding that the computer is essentially a symbol manipulation machine just like the brain. ‘Mind as computer’ is a commonly accepted metaphor by science as well as the culture in general.

Our common world view, i.e. our classical view of categories, is that things are categorized on the basis of what they have in common. Dogs and trees belong in their particular category because of essential characteristics of dogginess or treeness that we can through conscious observation determine.

Such a classical view is not entirely wrong; however, it plays only a small part in our comprehension of our world. “In recent years it has become clear that categorization is far more complex than that. A new theory of categorization, called prototype theory has emerged. It shows that human categorization is based on principles that extend far beyond those envisioned in the classical theory.”

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

I graduated from Oklahoma State University in January of 1959

Such a classical view is not entirely wrong; however, it plays only a small part in our comprehension of our world. “In recent years it has become clear that categorization is far more complex than that. A new theory of categorization, called prototype theory has emerged. It shows that human categorization is based on principles that extend far beyond those envisioned in the classical theory.”[/b]

---

you must be in your 70's. wow.


so what principles would prototype theory put forth in answer to the question of "how do we categorize our reality? "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

you must be in your 70's. wow.


so what principles would prototype theory put forth in answer to the question of "how do we categorize our reality? "

---

Prototype theory to follow, keep tuned.

So are you big on Kant? I could never get through him.

And symbolic logic made my eyes glaze over. Just thinking about it is making it hard to see the keyboard.

Good stuff though. Not sure why your posting about categories just out of the blue so to speak but I'm new on the forum so maybe I'm missing something from previous postings.

Interesting stuff. As far as categorization is concerned, I always thought that Porphyry's Isagoge reveals the very basic principles of our understanding and defining things. Basically, this little text is what entire taxonomy is based on. I'm interested in hearing this new theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pagebypage

So are you big on Kant? I could never get through him.

And symbolic logic made my eyes glaze over. Just thinking about it is making it hard to see the keyboard.

Good stuff though. Not sure why your posting about categories just out of the blue so to speak but I'm new on the forum so maybe I'm missing something from previous postings.

---

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

In the United States our culture compels us to have a purpose. Our culture defines that purpose to be ‘maximize production and consumption’. As a result all good children feel compelled to become a successful producer and consumer. All good children both consciously and unconsciously organize their life for this journey.

At mid-life many citizens begin to analyze their life and often discover a need to reconstitute their purpose. Some of the advantageous of this self-learning experience is that it is virtually free, undeterred by age, not a zero sum game, surprising, exciting and makes each discovery a new eureka moment. The self-learning experience I am suggesting is similar to any other hobby one might undertake; interest will ebb and flow. In my case this was a hobby that I continually came back to after other hobbies lost appeal.

I suggest for your consideration that if we “Get a life—Get an intellectual life” we very well might gain substantially in self-worth and, perhaps, community-worth.

As a popular saying goes ‘there is a season for all things’. We might consider that spring and summer are times for gathering knowledge, maximizing production and consumption, and increasing net-worth; while fall and winter are seasons for gathering understanding, creating wisdom and increasing self-worth.

I have been trying to encourage adults, who in general consider education as a matter only for young people, to give this idea of self-learning a try. It seems to be human nature to do a turtle (close the mind) when encountering a new and unorthodox idea. Generally we seem to need for an idea to face us many times before we can consider it seriously. A common method for brushing aside this idea is to think ‘I’ve been there and done that’, i.e. ‘I have read and been a self-learner all my life’.

I am not suggesting a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon. I am suggesting a ‘Lewis and Clark Expedition’. I am suggesting the intellectual equivalent of crossing the Mississippi and heading West across unexplored intellectual territory with the intellectual equivalent of the Pacific Ocean as a destination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

In the United States our culture compels us to have a purpose. Our culture defines that purpose to be ‘maximize production and consumption’. As a result all good children feel compelled to become a successful producer and consumer. All good children both consciously and unconsciously organize their life for this journey.

At mid-life many citizens begin to analyze their life and often discover a need to reconstitute their purpose. Some of the advantageous of this self-learning experience is that it is virtually free, undeterred by age, not a zero sum game, surprising, exciting and makes each discovery a new eureka moment. The self-learning experience I am suggesting is similar to any other hobby one might undertake; interest will ebb and flow. In my case this was a hobby that I continually came back to after other hobbies lost appeal.

I suggest for your consideration that if we “Get a life—Get an intellectual life” we very well might gain substantially in self-worth and, perhaps, community-worth.

As a popular saying goes ‘there is a season for all things’. We might consider that spring and summer are times for gathering knowledge, maximizing production and consumption, and increasing net-worth; while fall and winter are seasons for gathering understanding, creating wisdom and increasing self-worth.

I have been trying to encourage adults, who in general consider education as a matter only for young people, to give this idea of self-learning a try. It seems to be human nature to do a turtle (close the mind) when encountering a new and unorthodox idea. Generally we seem to need for an idea to face us many times before we can consider it seriously. A common method for brushing aside this idea is to think ‘I’ve been there and done that’, i.e. ‘I have read and been a self-learner all my life’.

I am not suggesting a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon. I am suggesting a ‘Lewis and Clark Expedition’. I am suggesting the intellectual equivalent of crossing the Mississippi and heading West across unexplored intellectual territory with the intellectual equivalent of the Pacific Ocean as a destination.

---

It sounds like we have taken somewhat parallel paths though you've about 20 years on me and have dedicated much more thought toward the results than I. I'm not a young adult--I just enjoy reading and I read eclectically; I'm science trained also--putting about 30 yrs now in environmental chemistry. But unlike you I've gotten quite jaded. I studied theology extensively in my thirties but concluded, with the exception of moral theory, it is mostly nonsense. I've studied philosophy for a number of years in my forties and pretty much come to the same conclusion. Oh, not that all of either is pointless, just the systems derived from the basics. Now that I'm colonizing the fifties, about all I can stomach to read seriously is ethics.

I enjoy your posts. They are well reasoned and well written and I hope to read many more.

Pagebypage

I think that if the citizens of the world do not significantly improve their level of intellectual sophistication quickly that our species will become toast. A species cannot survive if it does not have the ability to adapt.

Beliving this basic premise then I must try to do something about it. Thus this effort to awaken the population to their responsibility.

Of course, can citizens without the sophisication to comprehend the problems we face have sufficiennt sophistication to do something about the danger?

Buck up, coberst.

Every generation as it nears its passing sees it successor as a flock of fools. History is replete with their laments. But the wheel turns and inevitably things find a way of muddling along until, someday, our great-great-great-great...great grandchildren will look on our times and wonder how we could have stood it, so primitive, so ignorant. Such is the natural order of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

Our common world view, i.e. our classical view of categories, is that things are categorized on the basis of what they have in common. Dogs and trees belong in their particular category because of essential characteristics of dogginess or treeness that we can through conscious observation determine.

Such a classical view is not entirely wrong; however, it plays only a small part in our comprehension of our world. “In recent years it has become clear that categorization is far more complex than that. A new theory of categorization, called prototype theory has emerged. It shows that human categorization is based on principles that extend far beyond those envisioned in the classical theory.”

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

---

Oh dear, this brings back memories. I took a cognitive linguistics class taught by Professor Lakoff and this was one of our textbooks. Imagine my surprise to find it quoted here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pagebypage

Buck up, coberst.

Every generation as it nears its passing sees it successor as a flock of fools. History is replete with their laments. But the wheel turns and inevitably things find a way of muddling along until, someday, our great-great-great-great...great grandchildren will look on our times and wonder how we could have stood it, so primitive, so ignorant. Such is the natural order of things.

---

I think that you have given me an answer to my question "can citizens without the sophisication to comprehend the problems we face have sufficiennt sophistication to do something about the danger?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilde woman

Oh dear, this brings back memories. I took a cognitive linguistics class taught by Professor Lakoff and this was one of our textbooks. Imagine my surprise to find it quoted here!

---

I would appreciate "hearing" what you thought of the course and the professor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

I think that you have given me an answer to my question "can citizens without the sophisication to comprehend the problems we face have sufficiennt sophistication to do something about the danger?"

---

How in the world did I do something like that?

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2008/04/Subtlety.jpg

Good one, weltanschauung, but what do you mean?:lol:

Yeah I know I got diss'ed. I just don't know why the old guy diss'ed me. I never took a cheap shot at him; I never even criticized his posts.

Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
Miyagi: Someone always know more.
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.


http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/101.gif

I see our buddy, Coberst, is considered a bit of a spammer. I've found identical posts to these on quite a few different sites. I guess leavening the loaves is easy if you use the same old same old everywhere.